Kevin Rudd: rebooted ?
Hes back
After an entertaining interview on 7:30 last night(and rumours that The ABC postponed a chat with GillarD) Kevin has made a Messiah like visit to Geelong where he healed the sick and walked on water.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/special-features/forget-kevin-07-now-its-comeback-kevin-as-former-prime-minister-is-mobbed-in-geelong/story-fnho52jp-1226659427849 http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/06/07/1226659/423906-kevin-rudd.jpg http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/06/07/1226659/424226-kevin-rudd.jpg http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2013/06/07/1226659/424966-kevin-rudd.jpg No Sandwich Snipers were spotted. You don't see people that happy to see Gillard. |
05:21pm 07/06/13 Permalink
Yesterday Kevin Rudd came out and said: Politicians shouldn't make excuses for their impending election loss, they should come up with a plan to win the election and act on it
Just kidding, he said this: "It is completely wrong for people in our national political life to be on about constructing alibis for defeat when our responsibility on behalf of the people we represent and the parliament of Australia is not just to devise a strategy for victory but to implement that strategy as well." When I hear his smarmy language I just cringe. |
05:36pm 07/06/13 Permalink
He's gearing up to take over the leadership after gillard and the government gets annihilated election, you can easily tell. He's going all over the country holding leader style meetings and conferences at schools etc. He is using youtube to release leader style videos and viral videos to gain popularity.
No other backbencher does this. |
05:40pm 07/06/13 Permalink
Not gonna happen. The ALP hates Rudd more than they hate Abbott.
|
05:41pm 07/06/13 Permalink
I don't get Rudd.
He keeps saying he is behind Gillard, blah blah blah. Then he is out campaigning in Geelong. WTF does a labor backbencher from Queensland have to do with Geelong. He needs to shut the f*** up and camp out in Griffith to put an end to leadership speculation and he knows it. This really can only be read as "I'm still here Gillard". |
06:43pm 07/06/13 Permalink
Didn't Gillard stab him in the back already? Wouldn't be suprised if he did it back.
As long as Tony Abbot doesn't get in, can you imagine? |
06:53pm 07/06/13 Permalink
Didn't Gillard stab him in the back already?No, Rudd lost the support of his party. Same way Abbott replaced Turnbull. |
07:10pm 07/06/13 Permalink
Yeah there's a reason he got knifed and hasn't been able to stage a coherent comeback since.
Behind the scenes the government was just as pissed off with Rudd as they are now with Gillard. People seem to forget that Rudd's polling numbers leading up to the backstab were dismal as well but now everyone loves him. I'm certain if Labor went with a return to Rudd that after a few months the public will start to remember why they didn't like him either. The Libs are certain to line up all the clips of Labor MPs paying out on Rudd and play them in a loop this election. Can't bring him back & he won't go away. Sad to say that Labor has dug their own hole. :( |
07:32pm 07/06/13 Permalink
he's a f*****g twerp, bring back Howard already ffs.
|
07:58pm 07/06/13 Permalink
The Media love to follow him too.
Every time he goes somewhere that's the #1 story of the day in Politics. The Media don't care what Gillard and Abbott is doing, wheres Kevin today ? The ALP hates Rudd more than they hate Abbott. Its fascinating stuff. They would rather be OBLITERATED than let him back. Its no wonder they cant run the Country, they cant even run their own Party. |
08:02pm 07/06/13 Permalink
Yeah there's a reason he got knifed and hasn't been able to stage a coherent comeback since. he's marketable... poor bastard. |
08:14pm 07/06/13 Permalink
He certainly is marketable, but caveat emptor :D
|
09:01pm 07/06/13 Permalink
Could anyone ever vote labor again?
|
09:07pm 07/06/13 Permalink
parties should get 10 years in power then swap. all this democracy gets in the way of progress.
|
11:36pm 07/06/13 Permalink
rudd has always been on the outer because he didn't get parachuted in by some union and has no allegiance(read: back scratching) to some backroom labor union wanker, the 'faceless' men he campaigned about.
rudd had the charisma to win big for labor then he was knifed. gillard didn't win the last election she did deal with independents and the greens to stay in govt. maybe its all for the best that labor will be decimated, the dodgy dealings the faceless men have become public knowledge and its on the nose. rudd can claim the moral high ground because he's not an ex unionist like 90% of them. rudd will retain his seat, not sure on most of the others. |
05:59am 08/06/13 Permalink
I just don't get his star power.
When I hear him talk, I want to punch things.. |
07:36am 08/06/13 Permalink
fair shake of the sauce bottle creepy
|
10:41am 08/06/13 Permalink
rudd will retain his seat, not sure on most of the others. My issue is this. Rudd earned his dislike in the party. He is an untrustworthy manipulative c*** head. I can remember a comment by Alexander Downer, saying when ever he wanted to leak something Rudd was his go to guy. He isn't knifing Gillard with the constant media presence. He is knifing Labor, and he knows it. This is a leader we can all really aspire for. Someone who will actively sink a government because he didn't get his way. |
11:40am 08/06/13 Permalink
What a joke Australia is that we can't have the prime minister we want because his party don't like him. Of course if he's the man of the people he is going to be at odds with a bunch of politicians. The government of australia westminster thing runs on a bad algorithm.
|
12:08pm 08/06/13 Permalink
He is knifing Labor, and he knows it. That's probably a correct assessment.. he's knifing what labor has become which not what the party should be. It is a workers protest party which is supposed to look after the interests of the lower/middle class. All it has been looking after lately is its career unionist mates who have never worked a day in their lives or ran a business, it rewards dodgy deals done years before, it hands plumb bureaucratic jobs to its mates. It is majority full of self serving bad people who make bad decisions. There is so much underhanded dealings going on around unions and the labor party. What I personally think is after this upcoming Queensland style demolition of labor, the broom through labor, the faceless men will hopefully lose any power they have and the party is no longer beholden to 1 or 2 men at the top who are more interested in looking after their mates then the country. and to think I used to be the most staunch labor supporter ever. I hate the party now. |
02:58pm 08/06/13 Permalink
11:12pm 08/06/13 Permalink
I wonder if he's gearing up to make his own party and split from labor?he'd get blocked by labour in parlament and essentially become ineffective. they'd just elect someone to vote against what ever he is voting for, essentially marginalizing his constitutes voices. Would certainly make politics much more interesting though. |
12:38am 09/06/13 Permalink
02:12pm 09/06/13 Permalink
Andrew Bolt was contacted by someone who witnessed The Messiahs visit to the Shopping Center and all was not as it seemed...
BTW...just spoke to mate who’s daughter works as a hairdresser at Corio Village. She said that Friday was a circus, totally scripted from start to finish...a bus load of Labor supporters arrived a half an hour before Kev and his entourage. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/did_kevin_rudd_con_the_media_with_his_triumphant_tour/ Anyone watch House Of Cards with Kevin Spacey ? Rudd reminds me of that character. |
08:39pm 09/06/13 Permalink
No way. Rudd is the ultimate media whore. Spacey's character knows the importance of discretion. I will actually break my rule and watch QANDA on Monday night because Mark Latham is on. That guy figured out finally just how toxic the ALP is. It only took a rise to the leadership and failed PM campaign to figure it out.
Graham Richardson put it well today: ALP are in the 5 steps of grieving, currently at Step 3 - bargaining. Even though they are doomed they think they can still at this late stage make some pact with the Devil (Rudd). After squashing him 3 times now why would they have him back? it's the irrational desperate behaviour of a party which is looking over a ledge. |
08:47pm 09/06/13 Permalink
Abbot is a complete f*****g porkchop. infi will be along soon to post how awesome he really is, but Keating is right, he really is a nutbag political figure ... who is about to be PM and it does my head in over and over when I think about that.
Its gobsmacking that the ALP is unable to muster anything like a viable choice to an Abbott-led Coalition Government. What a truly s*** political landscape. |
05:43pm 10/06/13 Permalink
People are voting for the party not the leader so much this election.
I actually hate Swan more than Juliar. That smug c*** thinks he can fool everyone and make out he gives a s*** about working aussies while he reams them in the ar$e. He isn't a Treasurers a******* and he knows it. Mind you I live in his electorate and ironically he always been a fairly good local memeber. A clear case of being promoted above your station. |
06:02pm 10/06/13 Permalink
I noticed the NBN is getting rushed through in Swannie's electorate. That might sway a few votes.
|
07:11pm 10/06/13 Permalink
Mark Latham on Q&A soon.
might be funny. |
09:20pm 10/06/13 Permalink
As bad as Labor is, alot of it is media hype and unwarranted.
Scariest thing though is how much power Abbott will have with this amount of swing. Dark times ahead. |
09:31pm 10/06/13 Permalink
Don't I get credit for setting up the play? :( You do, you do. If there's one thing everyone can come together for, it's good schtick. |
11:43pm 10/06/13 Permalink
The best thing about having a huge, over hanging gut and smallish hips is that when I get an erection I can lift my gut up and pit the tip of my c*** in the flap. When sitting at a certain angle I can thrust my hips and dang does it surely does feel good. Even better on a hot summers day when the sweat and pus from my unwashed folds of skin mingle into a realistic lubrication. Sometimes I don't wipe my seed away and the next time, oh my, it feels like I imagine a woman to feel like.
|
11:57pm 10/06/13 Permalink
haha to whoever found mental's account still signed in, bravo.
|
12:11am 11/06/13 Permalink
Abbot is a complete f*****g porkchop. infi will be along soon to post how awesome he really is, but Keating is right, he really is a nutbag political figure ... who is about to be PM and it does my head in over and over when I think about that. |
04:54am 11/06/13 Permalink
Andrew Bolt Stopped reading Faceman's post at this point |
08:43am 11/06/13 Permalink
Old mate had a pretty good show on Q&A. Just goes to show how crazy the modern ALP has become when they make Mark Latham look sane by comparison.
|
01:17pm 11/06/13 Permalink
yer, whats going on with alp certainly isnt a good look. they've f***ed this one up royally.
|
01:33pm 11/06/13 Permalink
Lol, sorry, was actually me, premature ctrl-v to the wrong tab, friends facebook was left signed in on my guest comp.
|
01:37pm 11/06/13 Permalink
Gillards played the gender card...yet again.
We should all vote Labor because the Coalition has male ministers (apart from Bishop) and she also played the Abortion card. Is there anyone in Australia that believes shes losing in the Polls because Tony Abbott doesn't like Women ? even though hes married, got 3 daughters and his chief of staff is a Woman and his Deputy is a Woman. Although a I guess Labor has a Woman as a Deputy too. |
10:44pm 11/06/13 Permalink
I guess everyones seen the recent institutionalized misogyny that has come out of the LNP today. I won't bother linking to it, but the real funny thing is that Tony Abbott has spoken against it. Remember Tony Abbott is the guy who said these things -
The problem with the Australian practice of abortion is that an objectively grave matter has been reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience.http://i.imgur.com/bj48QEv.gif |
04:59pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Abortion is funded by medicare, it was funded by medicare whilst Tony Abbott was health minister. So if he was to impose his moral code on Australians he had ample opportunity to do it. It is not government's role to make moral judgments about personal choices.
Abortion is not simply a medical procedure like removing a wart or ingrown toenail and that is simply the point Tony is making. I am sure anyone (including the women undergoing abortions) would have to agree that having an abortion is a regrettable and emotional experience that is preferably avoided. Tony Abbott did not make the remarks you are alluding to (it was a rehashing of the old Julia Gillard KFC joke about the "red box") and Labor have been involved in similar incidents where idiots within the party make crude jokes where Ministers have been in attendance. What I actually think is in poor taste is trying to connect a sexist renegade remark to Tony Abbott and a party's policy stance on abortion. It's weak politics for the Prime Minister to keep harping on about Tony's "misogyny" when he has a female chief of staff and a female deputy. I guess really that's all Gillard has left, since she has failed on all other accounts... I wonder if Kevin would take the misogyny line (hang on, he never did when he was already PM), or is she the only politician in Australia who thinks anyone actually believes it. |
05:16pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Ahh yes, the old he can't be racist he has black friends retooled to he can't be a misogynist he has female staff. I could quote only one of those statements and I'd have all the proof I need that Abbott is a misogynist. Those are statements he made on the public record... imagine what he actually thinks?
But of course this matters nothing to his followers. Why would it when one of his policies (you know the one) is solely targeted towards the xenophobic? I am sure anyone (including the women undergoing abortions) would have to agree that having an abortion is a regrettable and emotional experience that is preferably avoided.I am sure a reasonable person would think that. Not Tony Abbott though! Abortion is the easy way out. It’s hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations.I am getting all these quotes from here and they are all sourced on that handy website. |
05:31pm 12/06/13 Permalink
I am sure anyone (including the women undergoing abortions) would have to agree that having an abortion is a regrettable and emotional experience that is preferably avoided. F*****g ouch. Hoggy's current favourite word: porkchop. Heh my Steam handle was Lord Porkchop for a few weeks, you may have a point ;) |
05:36pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Abortion is funded by medicare, it was funded by medicare whilst Tony Abbott was health minister. So if he was to impose his moral code on Australians he had ample opportunity to do it.I guess you forgot about this http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mps-strip-abbott-of-ru486-veto/2006/02/16/1140037811387.html |
05:58pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Gillard always brings up the fake "misogyny" game whenever Rudd starts picking up pace or when she has another policy failure. She thinks she can scream "OMG MISOGYNY" and it will work.
It's like watching a very bad comedy show. She has become a running joke, that's probably why they thought it would be a good idea to make fun of her on their menu. |
06:16pm 12/06/13 Permalink
I guess you forgot about this A right to an abortion at state expense is not a right to an abortion by your preferred means. RU486 as an example of misogyny is piss poor. |
06:26pm 12/06/13 Permalink
That was a separate thing to his misogyny though. The way the article reads makes it sound as though he wanted to ban the drug completely, not block it from government subsidy. If that's the case then infi's claim that he doesn't apply his moral code on people is clearly false.
And even if that isn't the case, he still applies his moral code in his opposition to same-sex marriage. |
06:32pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Yeah unless there are genuine medical reasons for the ban. Equating denial of one method of abortion, or a lack of subsidy, with misogyny is straw-manning pure and simple.
Presumably you oppose the use of the coat hanger technique, or the forced technique. A right to an abortion is not a right to do it however you want. |
06:44pm 12/06/13 Permalink
So dies Gillard fpot.And that makes her a c*** as well. I guess you brought that up under the mistaken assumption that I am some sort of ardent Gillard supporter? Yeah unless there are genuine medical reasons for the ban.Yeah but what would he know about that? Again I am just going by the article posted but it said after it passed the vote it went into the hands of medical experts at the Therapeutic Goods Administration who I think would be a better choice to determine if it was dangerous or not then old science fearing Abbott. Just having a brief check of the drug's wiki page doesn't reveal anything alarming enough to stop it from even being considered. I think it's a pretty clear cut case of Abbott applying his moral code to the public and you should all get used to it. Get your bibles ready. And again, no-one brought up this abortion drug misogyny link except you. Mantorok was simply pointing out a case of Abbott pushing his moral code on the public. Presumably you oppose the use of the coat hanger technique, or the forced technique.What was that you were saying about strawmans? |
07:00pm 12/06/13 Permalink
what f*****g brainiac would put "Julia Gillard Kentucky Fried Quail" in writing on a dinner menu!?
|
07:04pm 12/06/13 Permalink
it was written by someone as a joke but was not used at the dinner. Mal Brough is a bit of a problem but not as bad as his opponent Slipper. What did he call women ? |
07:49pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Abbott was the health minister at the time fpot. He will have been making decisions on medical efficacy in consultation, cause that's what health ministers do, there may well have been moral objection to it as well, but it was left to the ministers discretion, and if he couldn't see a strong case for changing the law well then he couldn't.
If he was forcing his moral code on people as the minister why didn't he move to retract subsided abortions, or generally make it harder. Letting the status quo run hardly strong evidence of rampant science fearing hatred of women/abortion. Just because people want access to something doesn't mean that its a violation of rights nor a case of forcing your moral code, in refusing to alter the status quo of an illegal drug. But saying that in a conscience vote Abbott was forcing his moral code on someone is boarder line retarded. That's what a conscience vote is. If he was so was everyone else. |
07:54pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Yeah but you can look at a conscience vote in two ways. It can be voting for what you think is good for society from an objective viewpoint (I will vote yes for this drug because if it is safe it's a much easier and less invasive option for women who want abortions) or it can be a vote for what you think is best for society from a subjective viewpoint (I will vote no for this drug because sexual promiscuity is a bad thing and abortions are the easy way out). Now judging by quotes I have read from Abbott and judging by his public attitude I am going to say he went with the latter there. If he thought it was dangerous then what was the harm of putting it into the hands of experts to determine whether it is dangerous or not? The reason he voted against it was because of a moral objection in my opinion. If there is any evidence this isn't the case I'd like to see it.
If he was forcing his moral code on people as the minister why didn't he move to retract subsided abortions, or generally make it harder. Letting the status quo run hardly strong evidence of rampant science fearing hatred of women/abortion.If I had to guess I'd say because it is easier to keep things the same then it is to make changes. If he can enforce his moral code by blocking a drug then he will, but it might be too difficult or even impossible for him to change other things like subsidised abortions. |
08:27pm 12/06/13 Permalink
No I don't think you can make that distinction actually fpot. A conscience vote is a vote based on your values and nothing more.
Whats good for society has no objective measure. It's a value statement. Therefore if you want to give women a safe and un-intrusive option for abortion, that's great but it's still forcing your moral code on people, based on an idea of what you feel society should be. His actions as minister don't match up to someone who is forcing his moral code on people. It only gets bought up because of his religious background. Just because he is religious doesn't mean that is categorically unable to un-entangle his religous convictions from his ministerial responsibilities. The two health ministers before him didn't legalise it, but nobody is out there crying anti-abortion ideologue on them. |
08:54pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Did those two health ministers have quotes attributed to them calling abortion shameful and the easy way out? Because Abbott did and that's why I think people are singling him out in this case. I know it's why I am.
It's possible for people to have good value and bad values. I think someone voting yes for the pill for the reasons I stated above are good. I think someone voting no for the reasons above which is what I believe Abbott did is bad. I was wrong in saying the pill is objectively good for society, but if it works as intended then is it fair to say that will objectively be a easier and less invasive option for women who want abortions? I think so and I see this as a good thing. It is going to take something pretty compelling to make me change my mind that on this particular case with the abortion drug that Abbott wasn't applying his own morals to the public. Some report he read that indicated that there was a real danger with the drug that might not get picked up by the organisation entrusted with determining its safety, or some rogue element in the government who wanted to pass the drug through for some nefarious purpose. Because I just don't see any other reason he said no to it. |
09:03pm 12/06/13 Permalink
No Leader calls for a conscience vote without already knowing the outcome.
|
09:22pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Well that's fine if you think that is why he didn't want to do it. But I think your stretching the facts too thin in suggesting that he was acting to implement his own moral code regardless.
The only relevant time was his as health minister because in a conscience vote he is of course going to go with his moral code, that is the point of a conscience vote. Michael Wooldridge is a trained doctor and didn't see a compelling medical case for legalising it at his discretion. If you want to engage in psycho-analysis of the minister that is your call, but his actions aren't solely explainable by the ideologue version, nor are they even particularly consistent with that explanation. You need some hard evidence to suggest that he wasn't applying his moral code by refusing to make abortion easier, but you are willing to assume that more perfectly realising his code, and making it harder, was just too hard in your last post. So he is a crazed anti-science god botherer who is also lazy? I think the facts are perfectly explainable by not seeing a compelling reason to change the status quo one way or the other. The fact that the preceding ministers didn't either would lend weight to that. |
09:29pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Reading Michael Wooldridge's wiki page makes him sound shady as f***. He is on the board of the Waubra Foundation, an anti-wind energy group who thinks that wind turbines cause ill-health lols. But that's beside the point.
I don't think he is lazy, I think he is pragmatic like all politicians. So he is a crazed anti-science god botherer who is pragmatic. I reckon that's a more dangerous combo than one who is lazy. I'll admit that all I am basing my opinion of this from quotes he has made about abortion and his religious leanings. To be honest I haven't thought a whole lot about it, the first I ever heard about this drug and it's refusal by him was tonight when it was linked in this thread. The only way anyone will know the truth is if we invent some sort of mind reading device or a politician answers a question honestly. Both of those things are equally unlikely. |
09:44pm 12/06/13 Permalink
If he thought it was dangerous then what was the harm of putting it into the hands of experts to determine whether it is dangerous or not? that's how we got a carbon tax |
10:23pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Stellar point infi.
The carbon tax proves without a doubt that in the future it would be much better for politicians to only make uninformed and personally biased or politically influenced decisions instead of consulting experts in related fields. |
11:07pm 12/06/13 Permalink
Just because someone is labeled an "expert" doesn't mean they can't make mistakes or give the wrong advice. People seem to hold the opinion that once you are called an "expert" whatever you say is as solid as stone.
The carbon tax is a perfect example as infi pointed. |
11:42am 13/06/13 Permalink
Hey look, a voter with a long memory. If we could just have a moment of your time, look into this thing here please...
http://www.beforethetrailer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/men-in-black-neuralizer.jpg |
12:52pm 13/06/13 Permalink
it was written by someone as a joke but was not used at the dinner.Faceman chooses to believe this? |
03:40pm 13/06/13 Permalink
Just because someone is labeled an "expert" doesn't mean they can't make mistakes or give the wrong advice. People seem to hold the opinion that once you are called an "expert" whatever you say is as solid as stone. The carbon tax is a perfect example as infi pointed. To me the point infi appeared to be making was that it's a sensible idea to just not consult experts at all because carbon tax. No one is saying you should do absolutely everything experts say you should do, but to make important decisions without first properly consulting people whose lives are actually dedicated to understanding the particular topic/field is just silly. |
07:50pm 13/06/13 Permalink
oh no Tims been outed.
hes not gay he just likes hair. |
10:38pm 13/06/13 Permalink
I think Tony is against abortion as a convenience, ie, just doing it because you don't want to be pregnant anymore. I don't think it's a right. If it is a right, the male partner who donated 50% of the genetics should have equal say, or, the male partner should be able to insist an abortion take place.
I think if confronted by a rape victim, Tony would be for abortion in that case. I just don't think he thinks it's a solution for unsafe sex or downright negligence. Rather than offering free abortions, why not offer free condoms and sex ed? |
12:37pm 14/06/13 Permalink
If even I have realised this guy just trolls for negative attention surely everyone else has. Pretty safe to just ignore it.
|
01:48pm 14/06/13 Permalink
Nice work, Jason. What exactly did I say was wrong?
|
02:10pm 14/06/13 Permalink
Abortion is used as an easy way out for girls who don't practice proper safe sex. I know many girls who have unprotected sex and have the attitude "Well ill just get an abortion if i do get preg"
|
02:43pm 14/06/13 Permalink
Abortion is used as an easy way out for girls who don't practice proper safe sex. I know many girls who have unprotected sex and have the attitude "Well ill just get an abortion if i do get preg" Friday Fun Fact. A girl can't get "preg" by herself. |
03:32pm 14/06/13 Permalink
Friday Fun Fact. So if the male is equally responsible, ie at fault, shouldn't he have equal say in whether or not an abortion occurs? It's getting technical but I think a zygote is equally the property of both partners. Abortion is used as an easy way out for girls who don't practice proper safe sex. I know many girls who have unprotected sex and have the attitude "Well ill just get an abortion if i do get preg" No, but people like Jason think that this kind of murderous service should be available on tap. |
04:20pm 14/06/13 Permalink
No, but people like Jason think that this kind of murderous service should be available on tap. lets bring up a state issue in a thread about federal politics. GG. |
04:41pm 14/06/13 Permalink
I'd just like to say at this point that, any support for Tony Abbott's stance on abortion implied by my posts is purely coincidental. Abortion is murder in the same way stepping on ants or taking a s*** is.
|
05:00pm 14/06/13 Permalink
That it's murder is a ridiculous view. It's better to have an abortion than to live a life with an unwanted child.
It shouldn't be extra-contraception. But you can't punish a girl for being a f***wit. I think it's a bit sexist however that it's seen as a woman's 'right.' A baby is the product of two people. Ie.. you sleep with some b****.. she gets pregnant and because she's insane, want's to keep the baby. You should be able to get a court ordered abortion or something. Vice versa, she wants to get an abortion, you want to keep it. I dunno.. that the female has complete control over it kinda isn't balanced/ |
05:22pm 14/06/13 Permalink
05:36pm 14/06/13 Permalink
No, but people like Jason think that this kind of murderous service should be available on tap.heh |
05:44pm 14/06/13 Permalink
Prolly should do Abortion in another Thread.
Since its not even an issue in the Election anyway. |
06:27pm 14/06/13 Permalink
Well Julia cleverly used menugate to bring men vs women onto the main agenda. Tony Abbot has made comments about abortion and he is the opposition leader. Juila needs votes and she is desparate to get them so she's pulling the female card. Kevin knows this and is hedging his bets and aiming for leadership again.
As you can see it's totally related to the thread. |
06:38pm 14/06/13 Permalink
Abortion is a State regulated health issue in Australia.
Libs have no policy to change it and no Liberal state governments have made any changes. |
06:57pm 14/06/13 Permalink
knowing grubby politicians, her men in blue ties missandrist speech just happened to coincide a day later with a menu that was just waiting patiently for the right moment to be leaked to the media and all hell breaks loose.
what about the remarks made about kevin rudd on the same menu? **silence** |
09:43pm 14/06/13 Permalink
what about the remarks made about kevin rudd on the same menu? **silence** They just called him "a Goose". That has nothing to do with Rudd's gender. |
09:42am 15/06/13 Permalink
12:36pm 19/06/13 Permalink
hahahaha that's awesome
“F*** them. F*** the lot of them. They deserve Abbott, those f*****g hyper-critical sheep. I mean seriously, he hasn’t even got a platform to run on; all he’s done is criticise every single f*****g move we make and then failed to meet us halfway when we try to actually govern the country for you f***wits. I give up. Enjoy your dial-up internet and corporate overlords. I’m moving to New Zealand.” |
01:18pm 19/06/13 Permalink
ITS ONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
9am tomorrow morning Rudd has the numbers apparently.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/it8217s-on-labor-spill-petition-circulated-among-mps-reports-leadership-ballot-called/story-fncynjr2-1226670120892#ixzz2XHvMfQSK |
01:09pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Bill shorten is backing Rudd.
its all over, she'll be stepping down this afternoon. |
01:19pm 26/06/13 Permalink
f*** me i hate australian politics
|
01:29pm 26/06/13 Permalink
I wonder if it is too late.
When Rudd gets back in (surely he will this time) he will have a Honeymoon period, will it extend long enough and be powerful enough to win the election? I would have though the time to change leaders was 6 months ago when Abbott was looking as foolish as ever. Now they have to manage to convince people that the Labor government is stabilized and a happy party in only a few short months.. |
01:35pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Gillard is about enter question time in parliament. 2pm
|
01:53pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Can't see it happening. It's just the crazy and desperate reaches of Labor MPs staring imminent defeat in the face. They are at stage 3 of dealing with grief and loss: bargaining.
1. Rudd is overseas. 2. Why would Rudd accept the leadership of a party destined for at least 2 terms in Oppossition? The labor MPs selfishly want Rudd to try and save their own necks from Centrelink but Rudd isn't that dumb. Rudd enjoys all the attention but he ain't stupid. |
02:22pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Can't see it happening. It's just the crazy and desperate reaches of Labor MPs staring imminent defeat in the face. They are at stage 3 of dealing with grief and loss: bargaining.1. Rudd is overseas.2. Why would Rudd accept the leadership of a party destined for at least 2 terms in Oppossition?The labor MPs selfishly want Rudd to try and save their own necks from Centrelink but Rudd isn't that dumb. Rudd enjoys all the attention but he ain't stupid. +1 but PM pension is better than MP pension.. so... f*** it right.. |
02:37pm 26/06/13 Permalink
There is synchronised swimming and now we have synchronised sinking, courtesy of the two men whose electorates delivered the highest anti-Labor vote in the nation yet chose to support the rolling debacle known as the Gillard government and the Rudd exile.
And now they are weaseling away quitting parliament. |
02:54pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Replacing an Opposition Leader is not the same as replacing a sitting PM.
Rudd wants what was stolen from him. He will become PM again even if he loses the Election, he will have returned as a PM even if its just a couple of months. He is an exceptional campaigner, it would be pretty tough to win it from here but who would write off Rudd completely ? Hes very popular with the common people and Australians love an underdog. I dunno whats going on now, it seems Rudd has cancelled his trip to china and there will be a caucus meeting tomoroow but so far only 1 ALP member has admitted seeing the petition yet its all over the Media that Rudd already has the numbers, which could be a ploy to pressure fence-sitters. QLD to win tonight and another QLD tomorrow morning odds plz Waterhouse ? |
03:09pm 26/06/13 Permalink
well facey has called it
so that means it probably isn't going to happen |
03:52pm 26/06/13 Permalink
On ABC Insiders on Sunday they were saying that there are constitutional issues with an overthrow of Gillard. The leader of the Labor party is not automatically the Prime Minister. The Labor caucus can choose their leader but that person needs to show the Governor General that they have the confidence of the lower house, or something, to be Prime Minister and they may not be able to do that with only two sitting days' left and the independents not on board.
|
03:54pm 26/06/13 Permalink
GAME ON MOLES
S*** JUST GOT REAL. tony will be s***ting himself. |
04:03pm 26/06/13 Permalink
They better sort it out before the SOO starts, f***ed if I'm going to change the channel and interrupt the footy for Labor navel gazing.
|
04:30pm 26/06/13 Permalink
wtf ?
she has no right to call for something liket aht WHAT IS THIS WWE ? ITS AN I QUIT MATCH |
04:32pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Ah F*** me dead.
Gillard is right about one thing, Who ever loses this should resign from parliament. |
04:37pm 26/06/13 Permalink
They should both resign from parliament and give Labor a chance to regroup and rebuild to be honest, they're both too politically damaged. It doesn't matter whether KR of JG wins because with either of them there the dysfunction is sure to continue.
|
04:44pm 26/06/13 Permalink
yer, thats not working so well for qld labor :(
|
04:48pm 26/06/13 Permalink
I'm not sure Rudd is going to risk going for this Ballot. But still keen to see what happens
|
04:50pm 26/06/13 Permalink
GAME ON FOR 7PM, SHE SAYS SHE WILL QUIT IF SHE LOSES!
DITCH THE WITCHHHHHHHHHH http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ4oUYW2xZo THE SMEAR ADS HAVE BEEN ACTIVATED, FOR THE HOARDEEEEEEEEEE |
04:57pm 26/06/13 Permalink
This Rudd bloke sounds like a real a*******. I wonder if he's at all related to our mate Kevin, hero of the shopping centre doorstop.
|
05:05pm 26/06/13 Permalink
are you seeing the same awesome rudd bloke i am?
hes been doing everything for his party as required. |
05:19pm 26/06/13 Permalink
last week he says "under no circumstances". lol what a joke.
|
05:24pm 26/06/13 Permalink
nervous bro? (you should be)
your bet? gawn. your government? highly likely gawn. your salty tears? delicious. |
05:25pm 26/06/13 Permalink
are you seeing the same awesome rudd bloke i am? Yep that's him, lovable Kevin who gets mobbed by fans on the hustings and bends over backwards for his fellow backbenchers, selflessly campaigning in their seats with them. He'll definitely have a ministerial place or two on the new Rudd front bench with all the dedication to the party he's been showing. |
05:25pm 26/06/13 Permalink
I wonder if the numbers will shift enough in Rudd's favor.. Wasn't good last year.
|
05:28pm 26/06/13 Permalink
he's got the numbers.
i do feel a bit sorry for simon crean though; |
05:35pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Its ON, Gillard or Rudd, one of them is quitting politics. They are both outright liars though, so do you really think either one would quit politics if they lost.
Gillard is in a Win-Win position. If she wins she remains and collects the PM pension for the rest of her life, if she looses she still collects the PM pension for the rest of her life... |
05:40pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Sky news is calling it for Rudd.
Its over. |
05:45pm 26/06/13 Permalink
zak, i got you bro, come here big fella.
|
05:45pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Does anyone else get the impression that all this will accomplish is the mutual destruction of both Rudd and Gillard, to the complete detriment of the ALP?
Is saving a few seats in the short term REALLY worth it? |
06:13pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Yes.. Because a powerful Abbott, is a scary situation indeed.
|
06:17pm 26/06/13 Permalink
wait spook, do you think rudd could win the next election? haha
he'll just be a seatwarmer for shorten, weeeeeeee |
06:21pm 26/06/13 Permalink
infi your predictions today haven't been that good
just sayin you said he wasn't stupid enough to contest but you were wrong he totally is!!! |
06:26pm 26/06/13 Permalink
hes a chance against tony.
everyone recognises tony as a half wit. the people love krudd. |
06:28pm 26/06/13 Permalink
thermite it has got me completely stumped. rudd is toxic. half the party hates his guts. there are reels of propaganda against rudd for the election. rudd is like that crazy girlfriend who doesn't know how to let go.
|
06:33pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Infi, the polls are quite clear. If the current Government makes it to the election they WILL lose.
Putting Rudd in will maybe, just maybe, get them back in the game. Simple as that. Also LOL@ picture on ABC news. |
06:38pm 26/06/13 Permalink
rudd is like that crazy girlfriend who doesn't know how to let go And Abbott is like that 1950s weirdo 'worst kept family secret' cousin born nine months after your uncle went to Cairns with his sister for a 'holiday'. |
06:39pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Remember guys, these pollies have the 'Honourable' title..
|
07:13pm 26/06/13 Permalink
The messiah will bring it all back full swing, don't worry about that.
|
07:16pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Tweet by some ABC guys says Gillard camp doesn't have the numbers to win.
|
07:23pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Tweets are all saying Gillard is gone.
|
07:24pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Ouch Infi, 2 fail predictions, care to make a third about who will win the election ;P
|
07:25pm 26/06/13 Permalink
its like infi doesnt know anything about politics.
|
07:26pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Spook, our favourite communications minister may go too... refuses to work with Rudd (well said that anyway..)
|
07:29pm 26/06/13 Permalink
K-man may be the new G-Man hehehe
|
07:36pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Spook, our favourite communications minister may go too... refuses to work with Rudd (well said that anyway..) yer antohet win sorry for my typing, my erection keeps getting in the raod |
07:37pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Kruddler the new PM
|
07:38pm 26/06/13 Permalink
I just didn't realise how desperate and f***ed up the ALP is.
|
07:40pm 26/06/13 Permalink
I just didn't realise how desperate and f***ed up the ALP is. Have you been in a Coma? |
07:41pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Infi made a rookie mistake, especially as a liberal party member. He thought Labor couldn't be that STUPID to put rudd back in. He thought it just wouldn't be logical, but that's where he made the mistake.
Labor and Labor supporters aren't logical. They don't use logic in their politics whether it be their policies or deciding their leader. They think that aussie voters are mugs and will vote for their incompetent government just because they changed the leader. Infi should have known better. I, for one, told him this would happen. |
07:42pm 26/06/13 Permalink
You'll find Abbott is more desperate.
I cant believe ABC just put that anti Labor youtube clip on TV. Put on the Abbott crazy s*** video then |
07:47pm 26/06/13 Permalink
simon crean hot favourite for deputy leader!!!!!
|
08:09pm 26/06/13 Permalink
I just didn't realise how desperate and f***ed up the ALP is. Out of interest, if you think this is the desperate and f***ed up move, what would you have called them just sitting around and patiently waiting to be destroyed in the election? If you were the Labor party, what would you have done? |
08:16pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Well given Gillard never had clear air because of Kevin's whiteanting she only had one option which was to play the cards she was dealt. How could she possibly get her (s*****) message out? Kev already had two tilts and lost, and yet STILL every second article was about ALP leadership challenges. The backbenchers could have told Rudd to STFU, but they encouraged him.
Like the mad girlfriend who never gives up, Kevin knew that if he hung around long enough sounding desperate and making cooing noises, Caucus one drunk and dangerous night would get desperate enough to f*** him one more time. It's fascinating that they could execute and then resurrect the same psychopathic failed leader. It's bizarre, I am blown away. Caucus' desperation is only only exceeded by Rudd's narcissism. |
08:21pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Are infi and PeterThePossumMan for real in this thread with all the frothing from the mouth, or just trolling by pretending to have extreme party bias and poorly thought-out comments?
Also, who the f*** updates this s*** so quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Australia |
08:23pm 26/06/13 Permalink
August election (?) just got real. Newspoll a week or two ago had Rudd vs Abbott at 50:50. Yeah, I think Rudd will go for an election ASAP before people remember why he had an approval rating of ~30% when he was knifed. |
08:28pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Never understood why his approval rating was so low. Same as Gillard.
The country is running just fine. |
08:34pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Conroy gone too. YEEEHAAAW Mixed feelings. Dude was a s***bag when it came to censorship but he did push the NBN awful hard. Here's hoping the replacement supports it too. |
08:37pm 26/06/13 Permalink
ha, the edit history is full of "he hasn't been sworn in yet" |
08:48pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Im happier now. Might be less of a loss at the election for labor.
|
08:50pm 26/06/13 Permalink
so its all clear air from here on in!
woot@! |
09:02pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Are infi and PeterThePossumMan for real in this thread with all the frothing from the mouth, or just trolling by pretending to have extreme party bias and poorly thought-out comments?PeterThePossumMan is DoctorMoist, SheerObesity, Tdog, Bonertone and whoever else he changes his name to. He's in the habit of using two accounts at a time so he has someone to agree with. Pretty sure he is a parody account and is never for real. Infi unfortunately probably is for real. |
09:05pm 26/06/13 Permalink
infi probably wishes he had a few spoof accounts
|
09:07pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Love all the talk of buzz-word whiteanting, asif Rudd could have in any way actually manufactured this outcome, and it hasn't all just happened because of the media narrative from all of the coverage trying to spin reality TV type drama out of boring old parliament.
I'd like to think once Rudd settles in with his cabinet and gets policy in order for an election, that coverage can stop speculating on all that kind of BS and focus on policy, but who are we kidding, the mass media looks for anything they think will get them the most eyeballs and earballs, so they'll just find other things to report on while actual policy debate starts on page 3. Calling it now, if they can't dig more drama out of the ALP camp over the next few weeks (which admittedly is unlikely with all the potential waambulance comments that might be incoming from Swan, Conroy, Garrett etc), they'll start crafting a narrative of unease among the Coalition, and there'll be spill speculation of Turnbull vs Abbott. |
09:11pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Infi, what happens if Liberal lose this election? Would you burst into flames from the sheer anger? Also if Liberal do get in and spaghetti hits the fan, can we say "I told you so"?
https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/1011158_400309946753551_1011579312_n.jpg |
09:14pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Are infi and PeterThePossumMan for real in this thread with all the frothing from the mouth, or just trolling by pretending to have extreme party bias and poorly thought-out comments?Also, who the f*** updates this s*** so quickly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Australia Not trolling at all, nor is my comments poorly thought out. This is a terrible government, there's no denying it and the polls reflect it. Even Labor knows it hence why they are desperately changing leaders to save some of the furniture. PeterThePossumMan is DoctorMoist, SheerObesity, Tdog, Bonertone and whoever else he changes his name to. He's in the habit of using two accounts at a time so he has someone to agree with. Pretty sure he is a parody account and is never for real. Infi unfortunately probably is for real. What? I only have one account on these forums which is this one. My name was SheerObesity and then i changed it to my current name. You can do it in your account settings. I'm not sure who all these other people are. |
09:45pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Torn between not liking Rudd, not liking Conroy, and not liking Abbott.
I guess it's a 2 out of 3 win for me. |
09:58pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Ask spook about the bitter pain of electoral loss. It is survivable.
|
10:07pm 26/06/13 Permalink
What? I only have one account on these forums which is this one. My name was SheerObesity and then i changed it to my current name. You can do it in your account settings. I'm not sure who all these other people are.Hahaha, you are not fooling anyone. |
10:10pm 26/06/13 Permalink
I totally think this was set up. Gillard walked into that Ballot knowing full well she lost it, she called the early ballot making it her decision to challenge leadership, therefore Rudd didn't break his promise..
Also Set Up, why didn't they just do a clean swap? |
10:27pm 26/06/13 Permalink
Kevin Rudds press conference is about to begin prolly 15mins away.
Swann Combet Conroy and Emerson have Garret all resigned. |
10:35pm 26/06/13 Permalink
10:57pm 26/06/13 Permalink
That anti-labor ad is BRUTAL
I think the Coalition need to be careful. The public like Rudd they dislike what Labor was under Gillard. The public don't care about the opinions of Politicians on other Politicians. the Coalition should stick to attacking Labor policy and not focus too much on Rudd. |
11:06pm 26/06/13 Permalink
11:17pm 26/06/13 Permalink
the Coalition should stick to attacking Labor policy and not focus too much on Rudd. This attitude is the worst thing about politics, people focus on pointing out what's wrong with the opposition rather than focusing on what's right about themselves. There's just this completely overarching theme of combativeness and posturing where politics/government should really in essence be about working together to make a better country. I don't want to hear what's wrong with Labor's policies, I want to hear what's right with the Liberals' proposed policies. |
11:18pm 26/06/13 Permalink
At least Julia managed to concede defeat without crying (unlike Rudd). I'll give her that much.
|
11:39pm 26/06/13 Permalink
It's the same incompetent bad government and same incompetent party.
It's so crap how bogans will vote Labor again despite all the crap they have done just because it has a new leader. HURR DURRRRR. The media has created this obsession with the leaders where everything is focused on the leaders and people actually believe all the parties decisions and policies are decided by the leader which is just totally incorrect. Boganization of politics. |
01:53am 27/06/13 Permalink
fair shake of the sauce bottle
by all accounts Rudd as PM pretty much was the decision maker, it's how he apparently alienated a lot of his colleagues |
03:15am 27/06/13 Permalink
Jesus, you wake up and find out that that d******* is PM again? WTF?
Hit the whole bunch of them on the head. |
04:00am 27/06/13 Permalink
It's so crap how bogans will vote Labor again despite all the crap they have done just because it has a new leader. HURR DURRRRR. The media has created this obsession with the leaders where everything is focused on the leaders and people actually believe all the parties decisions and policies are decided by the leader which is just totally incorrect. It always makes me laugh to hear people who I know would never change the party they vote for complaining about how other people do the same thing. |
04:56am 27/06/13 Permalink
Hahaha back we go, good on him. Dish served cold.
|
06:47am 27/06/13 Permalink
07:21am 27/06/13 Permalink
It's not just a simple leadership change though, what happens now with gay marriage / refugee's etc. Could be a some distinct policy differences that we now get to vote for at the next election. Will be interesting.
|
07:22am 27/06/13 Permalink
I'm just glad we can finally move away from the constant articles and speculation about the challenge of the ALP leadership and to something of more substance - like, heck, the policies of both parties.
I'm hoping a few things change: 1) We see some policy changes from the ALP to more clearly define what the ALP stands for over the LNP 2) Tony Abbott actually has to come out of hiding now 3) Some actual policies from the LNP. The LNP have had it waaaay too easy lately, I think people have forgotten how much of a c*** head Tony Abbott is because of the fact that he hasn't really had to do anything publicly for the last few years. Hopefully now, we will get a bit more of a debate about what's going on, and he will need to show his face again. |
08:18am 27/06/13 Permalink
It's the same incompetent bad government and same incompetent party.It's so crap how bogans will vote Labor again despite all the crap they have done just because it has a new leader. HURR DURRRRR. The media has created this obsession with the leaders where everything is focused on the leaders and people actually believe all the parties decisions and policies are decided by the leader which is just totally incorrect.Boganization of politics.Honestly, how bad of a shape is Australia in compared to other countries? I always had a feeling we were doing quite well, despite many of the public apparently "hating" Julia Gillard. |
08:30am 27/06/13 Permalink
That's a sensible way of looking at thing sLaps...well actually, it would be if the leader of the party were merely a figurehead and had no say or control over how things were run. Unfortunately for us all that is not the case, and Abbott does have great influence over the party policy.
What fantastic policies are you so keen on from the LNP? I guess you can probably pick maybe two or three because that's all the substance we have at the moment. |
08:32am 27/06/13 Permalink
Tony Abbot wants to get rid of my sweet, sweet high speed internet access, so f*** him. Rudd has my vote!
|
08:36am 27/06/13 Permalink
I'm also glad that we FINALLY have a PM who supports same-sex marriage. I doubt the party position will change, but I mean, at least we don't look like a totally backwards f*****g country now...well, until you get inside then you'll be like WTF :)
|
08:44am 27/06/13 Permalink
I think now gay marriage may be the moral challenge of our time - because it is more trendy.
|
08:47am 27/06/13 Permalink
I wish they would just pass a bill tomorrow that lets the pinkos marry each other so that we don't have to keep hearing about it all the time ffs. I know man, I feel for you, it's really hard to hear about a group facing such overt discrimination day in day out. Feel your pain. |
08:56am 27/06/13 Permalink
Tony Abbot wants to get rid of my sweet, sweet high speed internet access, so f*** him. Rudd has my vote! Yep ALP has actually firmed for me. I've always been a Rudd guy, f*** the haters. I quite like the smarmy little s***, certainly more than porkchop Abbott. Who is going to be our PM is a part of every voter's decision, I didn't like Abbott or Gillard but I prefer Rudd to Abbott. So aside from leadership personalities, we have: ALP - No more Joolia Gillard - No more Swanny - No more Conroy - Rudd's back - NBN firm (one of the OG Rudd policies) - Gay marriage will pass next term if they gain power - Slow return to surplus (we're told) Coalition - 'Stop the boats' - Still Abbott. Shoulda axed him for Malcolm a while ago boys, is it too late now? - No gay marriage reform under porkchop's leadership - S***** NBN plan - Fast return to surplus (we're told) by cutting services and savaging programs like the NBN My main issue aside form the above is the state of the budget. Neither party has sufficiently explained to me how the structural issues of the budget will be resolved by their policies, Abbott's Newman-style slash and burn can't possibly plug the hole without creating 3rd world core public services for health, infrastructure and education or smashing eligibility for social security. There's some fluffy waste in Government but not bazillions. As far as I can see they're all waiting for the dollar to come down ... or revenues for their shiny new communications monopoly to kick in. |
08:57am 27/06/13 Permalink
ALP stop it hoggy, you are getting me all hot |
09:08am 27/06/13 Permalink
Don't forget under coalition, likely industrial relations/employment law reform too. If you're an employer you're probably licking your lips. If you are a working stiff, uh oh.
|
09:30am 27/06/13 Permalink
'Save the gay whales!' LOL you're a bigoted little c*** aren't you slaps :) But lets play this game. Can you elaborate on how the economy will become f***ed (its not f***ed now as far as I know) and how the Coalition will do a better job? |
09:42am 27/06/13 Permalink
Our economy is f***ed? This is the same old argument that all LNP supporters keep wheeling out whenever they actually have to talk about policy. The unicorn is the national animal for Scotland, not Australia. John Howard was not the f*****g messiah. The LNP are not economic gods, and the saviors of all things.
If you want less socialism and more capitalism then go to America. |
09:44am 27/06/13 Permalink
Don't feed trolls guys. It's scientifically proven to lower life expectancy through stress/rage.
|
09:46am 27/06/13 Permalink
Reading social media comments, it's funny how quickly people forget.
When Julia usurped Kevin people were all like "backstabbing b****, poor Kevin" and now he's a "smarmy, smug character" for taking it back. Personally, I didn't have a major problem with Gillard. It seems like a lot of the tall poppy hate (and it was/is hate) directed at her was simply because she was a woman. Apart from her "bogan voice" I thought she handled herself pretty well. Similarly, I don't have a major problem with the Kruddler. Sure, he's no Keating but side by side with Abbott and it's no contest. Mind you a retarded chimp side by side with Abbott would be no contest, so that's not saying much I guess. Let's face it, there's not a lot of difference these days between the two parties (at least I don't think there is because Libs can't come up with a policy to save themselves). Abbott however is a dangerous alternative in the same vein as George Bush Jnr and Snr were for the US. If elected (please baby Jesus no) he may be "just a figurehead" but he represents the country in the international arena and that is just embarrassing. His ideas are outdated, he is an admitted homophobe, a xenophobe and a misogynist. You might agree with the Liberal party, but how could you possibly support that backwards clown? KRUDDLER FOR PM (the lesser of two weevils) |
09:46am 27/06/13 Permalink
Honestly, how bad of a shape is Australia in compared to other countries? I always had a feeling we were doing quite well, despite many of the public apparently "hating" Julia Gillard. Dude, Australia is one of the most advanced 1st world countries in the world in every regard - it ranks in the top 10 for almost every performance measure. In real terms, we're squabbling over the minute details of specific policies about how to use all the awesome s*** we have. #firstworldproblems much. Though the politicians do seem to be a bit on the retarded side, not unlike the US. I'm living in South Africa at the moment, it's literally no comparison, now there's real issues worth debating here! |
09:50am 27/06/13 Permalink
yer, i never had any issues with julia, other than she could never win the election.
it probably boils down to the australian voting public being retarded and not trusting/supporting a female leader. |
09:55am 27/06/13 Permalink
I think now gay marriage may be the moral challenge of our time - because it is more trendy. Legalise gay marijuana 2013. |
09:58am 27/06/13 Permalink
yer, i never had any issues with julia, other than she could never win the election. it probably boils down to the australian voting public being retarded and not trusting/supporting a female leader. This. As much as I would have happy to see Julia stick it up Abbott, it was looking pretty unlikely. Sadly, the Australian public aren't at the point where they can handle a woman as leader; an indictment on the public rather than the leader herself. At least with Kruddler at the reigns ALP has a chance of pulling the rug out from under the Stunned Mullet. |
10:08am 27/06/13 Permalink
good on labor for giving her a go though!
|
10:14am 27/06/13 Permalink
Coalition Lol yeah. I found it hilarious that this was the first "policy" he listed in his speech. Not once, but twice! |
10:15am 27/06/13 Permalink
Lol yeah. I found it hilarious that this was the first "policy" he listed in his speech. Not once, but twice!that is ludicrous and there's something massively wrong with people who vote for that clown and clown party if that is really their leading message save the country and vote for one of those smaller parties imo |
10:23am 27/06/13 Permalink
thats not going to prevent mr clowny getting in.
|
10:28am 27/06/13 Permalink
This. I think that is a bit of a cop out. The majority of Australians are sexist because we didn't like a female leader? One that campaigned horribly at the last election if you recall. One that changed her tact halfway through to the "real Julia" because she was tanking so badly. One that broke her promises to the electorate once she was elected. Great way to start a relationship with the public. Then one in with the support of the minorities, was unable to sell her achievements and went from one c***up to the next. Yeah, must be because Australia is sexist. |
10:32am 27/06/13 Permalink
I think it's probably naive to think that her gender had nothing to do with the hardships or the way people reacted to her, but I don't think it's the only reason why things were going so badly. As Gillard said herself, gender wasn't everything, or nothing, it was somewhere in between.
Personally, I think there are a lot of racist, bigoted, sexist pigs out there in Australia, and for some people it's a bit hard to stomach that, but it's true. The fact that "stop the boats' resonates so well, with so many people is a sign of that. The fact that both Gillard and Abbott both didn't support same sex marriage is surely a sign of that too. The fact that the 'misogynist speech' was received soooo poorly by the media here, but so amazingly well received everywhere else globally is a sign of that too. I liked Gillard, I think she made a heap of c*** ups, but I think she pushed through important reforms. I think Rudd needed to take over though because there was no way what so ever she could win at the next election Australian people, for whatever reason, including the reasons above the majority of Australia wasn't listening. |
10:40am 27/06/13 Permalink
I wish they would just pass a bill tomorrow that lets the pinkos marry each other so that we don't have to keep hearing about it all the time ffs. This. A mention for gay mates rambling on and on about it on facebook, and all the political amway s*** people continually spam in my activity feed. |
10:41am 27/06/13 Permalink
The fact that the 'misogynist speech' was received soooo poorly by the media here, but so amazingly well received everywhere else globally is a sign of that too. I thought that was because the local media saw it for what it was, a playing of the gender card and the media overseas just saw it for a good speech. Note Kevin was wearing a blue tie when he won the caucus vote. |
11:11am 27/06/13 Permalink
At least now that Ruddles is PM the Media can actually focus on the Good Gillard did do..
|
11:13am 27/06/13 Permalink
This. A mention for gay mates rambling on and on about it on facebook, and all the political amway s*** people continually spam in my activity feed. Speaking of... Has Kevin updated his leadership status on FB and changed his twitter handle from @KRuddMP to @KRuddPM yet? He's not prime minister until it's facebook official. |
11:14am 27/06/13 Permalink
One that broke her promises to the electorate once she was elected. Which promises were broken under the Gillard government? You're not going to equivocate an (initially fixed) emissions trading scheme with a carbon tax are you? Because, the global debate has for years understood these to be two separate things, which Gillard was surely referring to. |
12:01pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Which promises were broken under the Gillard government? You're not going to equivocate an (initially fixed) emissions trading scheme with a carbon tax are you? Because, the global debate has for years understood these to be two separate things, which Gillard was surely referring to. I guess when Wayne Swan calls it a carbon tax he is just being a pork chop... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znP1VkKVnyw#t=2m40s "That is a carbon tax, that is true" |
01:00pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Except as he pointed out, and I pointed out, that's just a technical equivocation on loosely comparable functionality only during its short term startup stage, while they've definitely moved to implement what the world has been calling an Emissions Trading Scheme as opposed to a Carbon tax - which is what they announced during their past election cycle - and what they have definitely implemented in the long term.
|
01:26pm 27/06/13 Permalink
So it is okay to do something that you say you aren't going to do as long as it is only for a little while.
Right. |
01:34pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Which promises were broken under the Gillard government? You're not going to equivocate an (initially fixed) emissions trading scheme with a carbon tax are you? Because, the global debate has for years understood these to be two separate things, which Gillard was surely referring to. It doesn't really matter how your can technically weasel out of the lie but it felt to the public like she was breaking a commitment. She has even on different interviews said "happy to call it a tax" and and on Q&A "I promised that there would be no carbon tax, thats true and i've walked away from that commitment". So it even sounds like from her she broke a promise/commitment. She, along with Swanny, committed to a budget surplus even when it was becoming clear that wasn't going to happen. She has told us many times that the leadership of the Labour party was no longer and issue and she had the full support of the party when this was clearly not the case. Now I am not am not saying pricing carbon was the wrong thing to do, I agree with it, but their handling and messaging of was terrible. I also don't think a "must get surplus" is the right thing either but Gillard and Swan were the ones who made that commitment. She felt deceitful to me and the whole party feels that way still and in my mind they have a lot of work to do to gain that trust back. |
01:46pm 27/06/13 Permalink
So it is okay to do something that you say you aren't going to do as long as it is only for a little while.Right. They didn't do it, they implemented an emissions trading scheme (as promised) with a fixed price for the first three years, which is loosely similar to a carbon tax in initial functionality, but is not a carbon tax. It doesn't really matter how your can technically weasel out of the lie What does matter is that they didn't lie in the first place. but it felt to the public like she was breaking a commitment And I blame the dishonest pundits repeating it until it became true for this. She has even on different interviews said "happy to call it a tax" and and on Q&A "I promised that there would be no carbon tax, thats true and i've walked away from that commitment". And that just highlights what a terrible campaigner she was, as everybody has been saying. Her government never implemented a carbon tax, they implemented an emissions trading scheme which had initial functionality similar to a carbon tax, yet she let people walk all over her. |
01:50pm 27/06/13 Permalink
I thought that was because the local media saw it for what it was, a playing of the gender card and the media overseas just saw it for a good speech. Note Kevin was wearing a blue tie when he won the caucus vote. EVERYONE else got it wrong, and we got it right? Ya, that's it. I was in the UK at the time and it was stunning to see the reaction over there VS the reaction here. The press was so negative, and it was the whole 'gender card' thing. I think for most people it was yeah, you know what, this kind of BS isn't on, and shouldn't be tolerated, good on her for saying something. I don't think calling out inappropriate behaviour, especially when it is so overt and discriminatory and sexist is a bad thing...for some reason 'gender card' keeps being mentioned. As per my previous post you're naive if you don't think the media and the parliament treated Gillard differently because she was a woman. |
01:53pm 27/06/13 Permalink
And that just highlights what a terrible campaigner she was, as everybody has been saying. Her government never implemented a carbon tax, they implemented an emissions trading scheme which had initial functionality similar to a carbon tax, yet she let people walk all over her. haha, i want some of what Nerflord is taking. She calls it a tax, Swan calls it a tax, but hold on, Nerflord says it isn't a tax so it is all good. |
01:54pm 27/06/13 Permalink
I don't think calling out inappropriate behaviour, especially when it is so overt and discriminatory and sexist is a bad thing...for some reason 'gender card' keeps being mentioned. As per my previous post you're naive if you don't think the media and the parliament treated Gillard differently because she was a woman. Yes, I am sure the foreign media was all up to date on the whole slipper debarkle. it is funny how someone can label someone a misogynist, a hater of women, while embracing a guy like Peter Slipper, a hater of women. Hypocrite much, but hey, it is on youtube, it got lots of hits. must be right. |
02:01pm 27/06/13 Permalink
And that just highlights what a terrible campaigner she was, as everybody has been saying. Her government never implemented a carbon tax, they implemented an emissions trading scheme which had initial functionality similar to a carbon tax, yet she let people walk all over her. So she implemented something which looks and works like a carbon tax but in some time in the future will work like an ETS (so effectively we get a carbon tax for X period before it transitions) and then has admitted to it begin a carbon tax, but it is not technically a carbon tax because it will morph to an ETS so we can claim it is not. She has lied somewhere along that story. She may not be caught in a technical lie but sure as hell not been honest. |
02:01pm 27/06/13 Permalink
It wasn't honest, the situation changed and she needed to form a minority government and back flipped to get the support of the greens.
If your so butt hurt over that after 3 years, and still clinging to the 'we were lied too' then so be it...my guess is you voted LNP in the last election anyway...but regardless it obviously hurt her in the polls, and Abbott played it so well, and everyone believes/believed his negative campaigning. |
02:04pm 27/06/13 Permalink
She calls it a tax, Swan calls it a tax, but hold on, Nerflord says it isn't a tax so it is all good. It's functionally similar to 'a tax' early on, but it's not a Carbon Tax policy which she was referring to in the election interview. So she implemented something which looks and works like a carbon tax but in some time in the future will work like an ETS (so effectively we get a carbon tax for X period before it transitions) and then has admitted to it begin a carbon tax, but it is not technically a carbon tax because it will morph to an ETS so we can claim it is not She implemented an emissions trading scheme which at its startup has a fixed price, it's a fixed emission trading scheme as far as policies are concerned, which is somewhat like a carbon tax, but is not a carbon tax policy. It's like somebody saying that they're going to paint a blue picture, not a red one, they start off with a purple undercoating, and a few motivated critics get everybody hyperventilating over that they said that they weren't going to be painting a red picture, when it's largely irrelevant and is not what they're really building. |
02:13pm 27/06/13 Permalink
It wasn't honest, the situation changed and she needed to form a minority government and back flipped to get the support of the greens.If your so butt hurt over that after 3 years, and still clinging to the 'we were lied too' then so be it...my guess is you voted LNP in the last election anyway...but regardless it obviously hurt her in the polls, and Abbott played it so well, and everyone believes/believed his negative campaigning. I am not butt hurt about I agree with the carbon pricing/ETS the question originally was about what promises were broken and the carbon tax s*** was the start of a line of them. If it was her only broken promise then I maybe people could deal with it better but it wasn't. I agree things changed and she needed to form a minority government, but once she had formed government with that compromise with the greens she should have been honest and came out immediately and told us what the deal was and how the greens, who the public voted for, has made it critical for their support. She may have gotten some flack there but at least she would have been honest and no matter what people threw at her she could go back to that honesty. |
02:16pm 27/06/13 Permalink
She implemented an emissions trading scheme which at its startup has a fixed price, it's a fixed emission trading scheme as far as policies are concerned, which is somewhat like a carbon tax, but is not a carbon tax policy.It's like somebody saying that they're going to paint a blue picture, not a red one, they start off with a purple undercoating, and a few motivated critics get everybody hyperventilating over that they said that they weren't going to be painting a red picture, when it's largely irrelevant and is not what they're really building. Again this is all just weaselling out of being dishonest. The policy it never referred to as an ETS by Labour it is always referred to as either a carbon tax or a carbon price. You analogue it a bit wrong, it is like them saving they will never paint a purple picture then they start painting a purple picture and say but but but we are just using that as an undercoat to the blue picture we are actually going to paint. Yeah the purple picture is technically an undercoat not a picture but it sure looks like a picture. |
02:23pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Yeah the purple picture is technically an undercoat not a picture but it sure looks like a picture. That was my point with that example. It only looks like that's what's being implemented if people don't pay attention to the overall process. They could have fought much harder on this one, but they never seemed to stand up for themselves on anything. Same with the NBN from what I've seen, letting the coalition getting away with painting it as a luxurious expense, rather than the startup capital of a national utilities company which is looking to earn back more than is put in. |
02:48pm 27/06/13 Permalink
The only victims of Global Warming have been the Politicians that wanted to play with it.
Big swing to the ALP after Rudd returned as leader tonight. ALP 49.5% (up 5%) cf. L-NP 50.5% (down 5%) – but will it be enough http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/snap-sms-morgan-poll-june-26-2013-201306261145 Heres comes Lazarus or is it the Messiah himself ?? |
02:51pm 27/06/13 Permalink
http://sphotos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1017241_10152947535855246_1607714445_n.jpg
parked out the front of his own electorate office. let the egomania begin! |
02:55pm 27/06/13 Permalink
is that seriously a truck with a generator and a massive digital advertising display on it?
what an utter waste of money |
03:35pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Once the shine wears off Rudd's polling will fall. For this reason I would expect the election to be sooner rather than later.
|
03:48pm 27/06/13 Permalink
It wasn't honest, the situation changed and she needed to form a minority government and back flipped to get the support of the greens.If your so butt hurt over that after 3 years, and still clinging to the 'we were lied too' then so be it...my guess is you voted LNP in the last election anyway...but regardless it obviously hurt her in the polls, and Abbott played it so well, and everyone believes/believed his negative campaigning. I don't understand this. Why would I be butt hurt? The guy I voted for is the member of parliament for my electorate. Gillard formed a government with the support of some members of parliament from conservative electorates. How did that work out for those members? The people of Australia got the government they deserve, and that government chose their leader. How did that work out for Gillard? I think the only one feeling butt hurt about now would be Gillard and those independent MPs. |
03:51pm 27/06/13 Permalink
I highly double Gillard is Butthurt, she has $600,000/year PM pension to live off for the rest of her life....
|
04:07pm 27/06/13 Permalink
It always makes me laugh to hear people who I know would never change the party they vote for complaining about how other people do the same thing. I voted Labor in 2007......... Honestly, how bad of a shape is Australia in compared to other countries? I always had a feeling we were doing quite well, despite many of the public apparently "hating" Julia Gillard. Ah yes, the usual "We aren't as bad as other countries!" excuse/apology. The fact is we aren't living up to our full potential, but somehow that doesn't matter just because "We aren't as bad as other countries" What a load of crap. Which promises were broken under the Gillard government? No Carbon tax No levy to pay for the NDIS No levy to pay for the major Queensland floods The $10,000 teacher bonus which was exposed as completely bogus from the beginning. and so many more, not to mention countless backflips. |
04:16pm 27/06/13 Permalink
I highly double Gillard is Butthurt, she has $600,000/year PM pension to live off for the rest of her life.... errg, not sure where you pulled 600k from. it is around 70% of their salary, so closer to $250k. |
04:17pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Oh, Big Boy Kev gets $600,000 apparently I thought it was similar for all PM's. Still $250,000 a year for doing nothing is a pretty sweet deal.
|
04:30pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Ah yes, the usual "We aren't as bad as other countries!" excuse/apology. The fact is we aren't living up to our full intentional, but somehow that doesn't matter just because "We aren't as bad as other countries"This you god damned mother f*****s. Change for the better is better than the status qou. Always strive for better. |
04:41pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Always strive for better.So don't vote for Abbott? |
05:10pm 27/06/13 Permalink
I voted Labor in 2007......... Obviously there's no way I could ever know one way or the other (and in the end it's totally inconsequential) but based on your first 274 posts here, there is absolutely nothing you can say that would ever lead me to believe that's actually the truth. |
06:58pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Door's history of lying lets you free yourself from even having to give the benefit of doubt.
|
07:09pm 27/06/13 Permalink
LOL you're a bigoted little c*** aren't you slaps :) My point was that I think that the whole gay marriage thing is a minor issue that seems to take up alot of media space. I'm all for the homo's wanting to marry because I honestly don't care and I just wish they would hurry up and pass the pinko bill so the government can focus on more pressing concerns such as housing affordabilty and the winding down of the mining boom. Its only the religious nutters who give a s*** whether queers want to get married. Ironically the old toe-toucher at work was telling me today he was going to vote for Tony Abbot! So there you go, what crazy f***ed up world we live in ;) |
07:44pm 27/06/13 Permalink
haha, you know whats a minor issue?
boat people. |
07:54pm 27/06/13 Permalink
I so love this argument. Nearly every aussie i knew in the UK had limited companies offshore to dodge tax, and had over stayed their visas... yet people winge here about a few boats of poor bastards. |
08:12pm 27/06/13 Permalink
I'm living in South Africa at the moment, it's literally no comparison, now there's real issues worth debating here! Well said bro. More bogans should travel (further than bali) and see just how fortunate we are. |
08:15pm 27/06/13 Permalink
yet people winge here about a few boats of poor bastards. presently illegal entrants number 3,000 per week. that's 150,000 per year. Illegal entrants - all requiring security checks, tax payer provided medical, housing, placement and cross fingers! it's a great little earner for the people smugglers thanks to Australia's very accommodating policies. |
08:19pm 27/06/13 Permalink
The only victims of Global Warming have been the Politicians that wanted to play with it. Faceman, you're a f*****g idiot. http://static.businessinsider.com/image/4e488ea169beddb83e00004d/image.jpg Tuvalu http://static.businessinsider.com/image/50758f2569bedde61f000000/image.jpg quod erat demonstrandum. |
08:21pm 27/06/13 Permalink
presently illegal entrants number 3,000 per week. that's 150,000 per year Citation? |
08:23pm 27/06/13 Permalink
It's 3000 a month, not 3000 a week.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/humanitarian-arrivals-at-highest-level/story-fn9hm1gu-1226667120422 |
08:29pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Citation? Don't worry mooby, it's obvious there wasn't one because the entire post was constructed to mislead. |
08:37pm 27/06/13 Permalink
08:38pm 27/06/13 Permalink
my bad. 3,000 a month. our immigration system is overloaded. recently ASIO admitted it was unable to process security checks for all illegal entrants and this was the major cause for their extended stays in detention. all of the current australian detention centres are overcrowded. The immigration budget has blown out by $1.2b of TAXPAYERS money (much to fpots delight I am sure) and further increases will be required to fund ASIO properly.
What is Rudd goong to do about this? At what level of illegal entrants would you be concerned mooby? 50,000 per year? 100,000 per year? Would you be prepared for your taxes to go up by 10% to pay for all of this? How much should Australia bear, and should every illegal entrant be detained prior to security screening or do we just let the wave of arrivals start work in Australia without any checks? |
08:43pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Obviously there's no way I could ever know one way or the other (and in the end it's totally inconsequential) but based on your first 274 posts here, there is absolutely nothing you can say that would ever lead me to believe that's actually the truth. True you couldn't, but it is true. Like most Australians in 2007, we were drawn into Labor and Kevin Rudd as a fresh new exciting Prime Minister and government with new and exciting ideas. We had 11+ years of Howard and it felt good having a change. It was in 2009 that i finally woke up and realized what Labor governments are about, especially this Labor government. It's around about the time most people in Australia woke up. Labor is nothing but a socialist party that stands for more tax and more debt along with stupid social policies that just don't make sense whatsoever. my bad. 3,000 a month. our immigration system is overloaded. recently ASIO admitted it was unable to process security checks for all illegal entrants and this was the major cause for their extended stays in detention. all of the current australian detention centres are overcrowded. The immigration budget has blown out by $1.2b of TAXPAYERS money (much to fpots delight I am sure) and further increases will be required to fund ASIO properly. What is Rudd goong to do about this?At what level of illegal entrants would you be concerned mooby? 50,000 per year? 100,000 per year? Would you be prepared for your taxes to go up by 10% to pay for all of this? How much should Australia bear, and should every illegal entrant be detained prior to security screening or do we just let the wave of arrivals start work in Australia without any checks? We have also seen recently the confirmation of that suspicion that a huge load of these so called "Asylum seekers" are infact bogus and that the checking processes are flawed despite the Greens are refugee advocates hysterically claiming "ALL OF THEM ARE LEGITIMATE POOR POOR PEOPLE" and that the processes of verifying them are bulletproof. |
09:22pm 27/06/13 Permalink
Tuvalu and other islands are actually getting bigger.
its survived 100 meters sea level rise over 20 000 years its an Atoll that increases due to sediment and coral deposits. That's Science PAL Even the ABC agrees its getting bigger ! Climate scientists have expressed surprise at findings that many low-lying Pacific islands are growing, not sinking. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-06-03/pacific-islands-growing-not-sinking/851738 |
11:04pm 27/06/13 Permalink
^ crazy infi, SheerObesity and Faceman posts, back to back.
nice wall of text in one spot to conveniently scroll right past ... |
11:24pm 27/06/13 Permalink
immigration budget has blown out by $1.2b of TAXPAYERS money You could try not detaining them. ringing New Delhi can't cost that much. |
12:08am 28/06/13 Permalink
Yeh, just let anyone arrive on our shores and let them roam around the streets. What could possibly go wrong?
Dissolve passports too and immigration at airports. Just let anyone on a plane fly in and instantly walk out into the public. |
02:32am 28/06/13 Permalink
they wanted protection from being persecuted and in detention they definitely have that!
|
03:05am 28/06/13 Permalink
Lets see, JWH and the other Liberal warmongers blindly going to war (without sanction) following our US massa's create a refugee problem.
Hmmm... how to resolve this? F*** it, we'll just take the easy way out and blame Labor instead for relaxing border policy. Simple story: When you unjustifiably f*** up someone else's backyard, yours is always going to look better. Also, my future BIL worked as an immigration lawyer for a few years (representing legitimate refugees). The % that go home after whatever has caused them to flee their homes has ceased is quite high. They don't all want to live here mostly because they don't want to be away from their immediate and extended families for any longer than they have to. |
07:51am 28/06/13 Permalink
10:39am 28/06/13 Permalink
Lets see, JWH and the other Liberal warmongers blindly going to war (without sanction) following our US massa's create a refugee problem.Hmmm... how to resolve this? F*** it, we'll just take the easy way out and blame Labor instead for relaxing border policy.Simple story: When you unjustifiably f*** up someone else's backyard, yours is always going to look better. I think you are mixing up the Iraq and Afgan conflicts. Also, arrives jumped after Rudd removed temporary protection visas, not after the conflicts in the middle east started. |
10:41am 28/06/13 Permalink
We are the 12th strongest economy in the world.
Yet in terms of doing our part when it comes to refugees... Australia was ranked 33rd for total asylum applications with 6206 new applications in 2009. source http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1294102/At-a-glance-Who-takes-the-most-asylum-claims In other words ... we aren't doing our part. We have 996 residents per refugee. The world average is 682 residents per refugee Ireland 536 Belgium 480 Denmark 412 UK 319 France 310 Cyprus 229 Netherlands 222 Canada 203 Austria 177 Switzerland 154 Germany 144 Norway 119 Sweden 107 I excluded places like Malaysia 317 and Venezuela 141. Because "yocals" won't connect with them (Asia and South America ... not white ...) The "boats" were a tacky political re-election stunt by John Howard (Tampa). Until then refugee policies had largely been bi-partisan, thus were not an issue. Boats even being on the agenda shows what a redneck little backwater Australia is. More people who fly in over stay visa's then come in on boats ... but they are mostly white, speak English and aren't muslim so that's ok ... If you are genuinely worried about the boats ... you are imo one of 3 things: - xenophobic, - poorly educated, or - politically motivated in trying to get redneck votes. I wish both the major parties would grow a morale backbone go bi-partisan on "boats" and take it off the national agenda, it does nothing for our social stability (it re-inforces a culture of "we should be scared of brown skinned muslims! ... well anyone who looks like they might be muslims")or our international reputation. Boats really are a form dog-whistle politics. It's on the surface about border security, really is designed to appease a racist voter. ps. the term illegals ... is wrong. The Migration Act 1958 allows for entry to Australia without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum. |
10:52am 28/06/13 Permalink
Isn't one of the main issues with arrival by boat the ability to do it with little or no documentation. this would enable anyone to arrive in Australia from anywhere, claim asylum and potentially then get a new identity. Don't you think people that arrive in Australia without any documentation should be held until we figure out who they are regardless of what mode of transport they came via?
|
11:13am 28/06/13 Permalink
This post has been removed.
Reason: citation needed |
11:26am 28/06/13 Permalink
Hear hear, Obes.
Aren't we all glad native aboriginal Australians two hundred years ago didn't have a rabid 'stop the boats' policy otherwise we might not be having this discussion today? |
11:26am 28/06/13 Permalink
Unless you had to flee pretty quickly from your persecution (or it was destroyed).
The real issue here is that there are organisations profiting from the business of human trafficking on incredibly unseaworthy vessels. That's what needs to stop. There needs to be a safe, controlled alternative for asylum seekers to use. |
11:28am 28/06/13 Permalink
Obes, you're doing it wrong, needs more shrill indignation. WE HAVE TO STAHP THE BOATS WONT SOMEBODY DO SOMETHING
Unless you had to flee pretty quickly from your persecution (or it was destroyed). We need to intercept the boats, humanely care for the asylum seekers, and throw the book at the traffickers ... the way they throw our guys in jail over drugs. Twenty year sentences per offense. Navy gets to play games hunting boats, refugees are looked after, human traffickers are jailed forever and they either stop doing it or they run out of crew. Surely trafficking HUMAN BEINGS is worse than a boogie bag of dope? How f*****g hard is this, really? People complain about gay marriage (civil rights issue) getting play while THIS is the main thing on porkchop Abbott's list of priorities? GTFO |
11:34am 28/06/13 Permalink
yeah sneak in by boat, don't just fly in which you could totally do and it would be cheaper
|
11:38am 28/06/13 Permalink
There needs to be a safe, controlled alternative for asylum seekers to use. Sounds too hard though, we could just sell the entirety of Christmas Island to Indonesia instead. |
11:38am 28/06/13 Permalink
Haha, yeah I think I've had this icon for the past 5 or more Junes.
|
11:43am 28/06/13 Permalink
Yeh, just let anyone arrive on our shores and let them roam around the streets. What could possibly go wrong? Why not? I didn't say no checks, just don't detain them. How much damage could a terrorist actually do? Is it really worth the 4 billion or so we are spending, to find out something like 90% are legit refugees? |
11:53am 28/06/13 Permalink
We need to intercept the boats, humanely care for the asylum seekers What the hell are you doing injecting unwanted properly thought-out logic in this thread? |
12:07pm 28/06/13 Permalink
How much damage could a terrorist actually do? This has to be a troll or one of the dumbest things ever said. |
12:10pm 28/06/13 Permalink
When was the last time an act of terror was performed by someone who arrived in that country without documentation?
Usually they just come through via student, working or are citizens of that country to begin with. I've never quite understood the terrorist aspect. If you ran an international terrorist organisation I would imagine you wouldn't want to risk your trained operatives lives on a dangerous boat journey when you could forge documentation for much less. It's easy enough to do a background check and keep tabs on any asylum seeker without the cost of having to keep them in jail for a while. |
12:20pm 28/06/13 Permalink
No its not a troll ara. I don't see why that should be above cost/benefit analysis.
Take the likelihood of an actual terrorist arriving by boat, then likelihood of being able to pull of an attack without being arrested by normal police work, then the cost of the damage they could actually inflict. I don't think the risk justifies the current spend. If we are spending however many billion to prevent a few million in damage how is it justified? Most attacks do f*** all 9/11 is obviously different, but think about Bali? I don't rate the lives lost either, not to sound callous but you're more likely to die of a heart attack then a terrorist attack. You could take the money and put into something to reduce the road toll, you'd probably save more lives and have cash left over. |
12:33pm 28/06/13 Permalink
http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2013/Second%20Quarter/27-June-2013---BorderProtectionCommandinterceptsvessel.aspx
HMAS Larrakia, operating under the control of Border Protection Command, intercepted a suspected irregular entry vessel east of Christmas Island on Wednesday night. Initial indications suggest there were 64 passengers and two crew on board. http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2013/Second%20Quarter/27-June-2013--BorderProtectionCommandinterceptsvessel.aspx HMAS Larrakia, operating under the control of Border Protection Command, intercepted a suspected irregular entry vessel north of Christmas Island on Wednesday. Initial indications suggest there were 65 passengers and two crew on board. http://www.ministerhomeaffairs.gov.au/Mediareleases/Pages/2013/Second%20Quarter/27June2013-BorderProtectionCommandinterceptsvessel.aspx HMAS Larrakia, operating under the control of Border Protection Command, intercepted a suspected irregular entry vessel north-east of Christmas Island on Tuesday. Initial indications suggest there were 79 people on board. 208 in 1 day. |
12:39pm 28/06/13 Permalink
A times B times C equals X
if X is less than the cost of locking up terrorists we don't do it |
12:41pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing Obes, well said indeed.
'Stop the Boats' is straight up embarrassing "policy" and is just one of the reasons I hate Abbott and his fellow Liberal party people. If half the donkeys braying about 'the boat' spent a little time listening to the stories of these refugees and checking their facts (infi) instead of parading around with their granddad's flag and their southern cross tattoos and their "F*** off...we're full" bumper stickers, they might actually realise that: a) it's a non issue b) there's actual real live people involved, not faceless minions of evil waiting to sail across and take thurrr jeeerbs c) the whole campaign is a smokescreen and a beat up to thinly disguise and promote racist, xenophobic and white Australia style thinking that ultimately isolates us from our immediate neighbours and the rest of the world |
12:42pm 28/06/13 Permalink
then the cost of the damage they could actually inflict. Not that I agree or disagree with your argument, How much do you 'cost' 1 human life at? |
12:44pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Not that I agree or disagree with your argument, How much do you 'cost' 1 human life at? Read the whole post. |
12:50pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Obviously there's no way I could ever know one way or the other (and in the end it's totally inconsequential) but based on your first 274 posts hereDon't forget his other 81 posts before he made his cute little comeback! Highlights include his Anders Breivik apologist posts. Anders Breivik understood that Western Society is under threat from multiculutralism and islam. Basically everything he said is true, however, he went about the wrong way trying to stop it ie mass murdering people.http://i.imgur.com/L5LnGcE.gif |
12:57pm 28/06/13 Permalink
everyone who wants the boats stopped for some reason is racist? that's kind of an exaggeration, and an untestable proposition anyway
I'm not a fan of the "stop the boats" rhetoric either, it's tacky and simplistic and shouldn't be the number one issue for a major party leader |
01:02pm 28/06/13 Permalink
everyone who wants the boats stopped for some reason is racist? that's kind of an exaggeration, and an untestable proposition anyway Racist might be a stretch, but its clearly a xenophobic position to take. Those desperate f*****s are going to blow things up, apparently. Every time I've seen footage of asylum seekers my reaction has been pity. Some people fear refugees for reasons I will never fully understand. |
01:29pm 28/06/13 Permalink
How many people arriving everyday would it need to be before you bleeding hearts thought there was a problem ?
\ Don't you care about the people who took up your open house offer only die at sea ? You want to encourage more dead refugees ? |
01:40pm 28/06/13 Permalink
the term illegals ... is wrong. The Migration Act 1958 allows for entry to Australia without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum.Wrong. Obes at 3,000 per month Australia's intake for 2013 will be over 30,000 so how does that then rate? it's a far cry from your 2009 statistic. |
01:58pm 28/06/13 Permalink
How many people arriving everyday would it need to be before you bleeding hearts thought there was a problem ? see this the turn in the debate I don't get from people such as yourself. Aren't you all about freedom, and the government should be running our lives? If people want to take the risk, why shouldn't they be able to? |
01:59pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Heh nice work there infi. Your own link says 'half true'. Is that the best you can come up with?
Some facts for those who don't know:
The language 'illegal immigrant' is deliberately used by politicians to demonise asylum seekers to the public. People cannot be illegal ffs. It is illegal to enter Australia without authority. We have explicitly agreed that refugees who enter without authority may not be chastised under our laws for doing so. It may be illegal but we've given then an exemption going back to the end of WW2. There is no queue to jump. There is no 'proper way in'. There is an explicit and open invitation to seek refuge here by travelling and asking for help on arrival. If we don't want people arriving on boats then we should withdraw from the f*****g convention. Don't be suckered in by the pollies and let them use these poor c**** as a political scoreboard anymore guys. Both sides are guilty of it and its disgusting. |
02:32pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Don't they say illegal arrivals now? Since arriving at Australia without authorisation is illegal regardless of your purpose?
|
02:40pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Don't they say illegal arrivals now? Since arriving at Australia without authorisation is illegal regardless of your purpose? Probably? It may be still technically illegal, but its explicitly allowed in our obligations under the UNHCR. Refugees have an exemption to the law. Why is 'illegal' always used so prominently when the law they break cannot possibly be enforced? The term is deliberately used to make sure Joe Public has the word illegal in his mind when thinking about refugees. Asylum seeker and refugee just doesn't scare people enough. Its hard to imply with a straight face that an asylum seeker may be a terrorist ... but an illegal arrival? Damn straight skippy, turn back them boats! |
02:47pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Its hard to imply with a straight face that an asylum seeker may be a terrorist well, this isn't really true. can't anyone seek asylum for whatever reason? |
02:51pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Nope. There are rules about what you can seek asylum for. So anyone can seek it, for any reason from that list, is what I am implying. |
02:57pm 28/06/13 Permalink
So anyone can seek it, for any reason from that list, is what I am implying. Yes - which is why they have to have it approved. Not sure how this applies to terrorists though? Disguising yourself as a refugee, crossing the Timor Sea in a leaky boat and then approaching the Australian Government to closely review your asylum application for a year or so just seems like the worst plan imaginable to enter the country to try and cause havoc? Why not grab a tourist VISA which is significantly less scrutinised? |
03:05pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Yes - which is why they have to have it approved. Not sure how this applies to terrorists though?Disguising yourself as a refugee, crossing the Timor Sea in a leaky boat and then approaching the Australian Government to closely review your asylum application for a year or so just seems like the worst plan imaginable to enter the country to try and cause havoc? Why not grab a tourist VISA which is significantly less scrutinised? isn't the difference that people are advocating while an application for asylum is processed the applicant should be out in the community where as when an application for a tourist visa is being processed the applicant isn't in the country? to me that would seem ripe for exploitation. |
03:15pm 28/06/13 Permalink
If we don't want people arriving on boats then we should withdraw from the f*****g convention.Amen. Clearly the anti- "boat people" bandwagon is driven by xenophobia, why not just man up and take that position (that the right simply do not want refugees here) to an election? It seems like such a move would actually be quite popular with a good portion of the population. |
03:58pm 28/06/13 Permalink
This has to be a troll or one of the dumbest things ever said. Going by his other posts, i think he is actually serious lol.... When was the last time an act of terror was performed by someone who arrived in that country without documentation? We had refugees who came here by boat who were here for 3 months before they started planning to attack Australian army bases.Luckily, we have been saved by our security organizations. |
04:14pm 28/06/13 Permalink
We had refugees who came here by boat who were here for 3 months before they started planning to attack Australian army bases.Luckily, we have been saved by our security organizations. I'm actually trying to find any evidence of this, can someone help me out? |
04:33pm 28/06/13 Permalink
We have explicitly agreed that refugees who enter without authority may not be chastised under our laws for doing so. It may be illegal but we've given then an exemption going back to the end of WW2. There is no queue to jump. There is no 'proper way in'. There is an explicit and open invitation to seek refuge here by travelling and asking for help on arrival. If we don't want people arriving on boats then we should withdraw from the f*****g convention. Hoggie hitting the nail on the head. Those "anti boat people" people should own up and say what they really think...that Australia shouldn't offer help to other countries and should withdraw humanitarian aid across the board. What's the difference between taking in refugees and teaching developing nations underprivileged kids to read or setting up hospitals in places like Africa and parts of Asia? It all costs money and resources right? why should we help anyone? australians love to embrace the "Lucky Country" and the "spirit of mateship" and all the other qualities that show us in a positive light, but a lot of people then go and vote for someone who openly condemns helping refugees - Abbott. He's not saying "let's manage this situation better for all Australians" he is saying quite blatantly "stop the boats" i.e. f*** off and don't come here. Come on Kruddler, show some true Aussie spirit and sort this out! |
05:44pm 28/06/13 Permalink
isn't the difference that people are advocating while an application for asylum is processed the applicant should be out in the community where as when an application for a tourist visa is being processed the applicant isn't in the country?to me that would seem ripe for exploitation. Some people want on shore processing where the asylum seekers are in the community, monitored by relevant agencies. I have a hard time arguing against this for mother/child groups. I'm fine with 'locking them up' though - assuming that the accommodations are humane and appropriate for people who we must assume are victims above all else. I'm talking about housing that is supervised but essentially free, with custodians whose job it is to help new arrivals learn about Australia and monitor their activity, help them with medical and emotional issues they've no doubt experienced., taking them on day trips and s*** with GPS anklets or something. Anyone who is a ratbag will attempt to escape this minimum security, be arrested and deported. Surely this could be no more expensive than building facilities on random islands and employing people to process arrivals there? Can we at least TRY to be nice? But regardless - the policy position is about 'stopping the boats' not 'how do we deal with asylum seekers who reach our shores'. Amen. Clearly the anti- "boat people" bandwagon is driven by xenophobia, why not just man up and take that position (that the right simply do not want refugees here) to an election? It seems like such a move would actually be quite popular with a good portion of the population. Exactly. I could almost respect a 'f*** you we're full' policy, at least it would be honest. |
05:47pm 28/06/13 Permalink
I literally just typed the above post and went straight to abc.net.au news and saw this:
He is taking my advice! Not sure why the link says school reforms but it about how "stop the boats" can affect our relationship with Indo... GO KRUDDLER! Now while you are at it, I would like a large tax refund please....aaaand go! |
05:50pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Now while you are at it, I would like a large tax refund please....aaaand go! brace yourself to pay more tax. that's how Australia pays for free housing and medical for all our new friends... |
05:59pm 28/06/13 Permalink
brace yourself to pay more tax. that's how Australia pays for free housing and medical for all our new friends... So with a page or so of discussion of UNHCR obligations and criticism of the stupid 'stop the boats' rhetoric, this is what you comment on? Come on infi, I want to know the opinion here from the party faithful. Should we withdraw from the Convention? Its literally an invitation to arrive by boat. |
06:07pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Not sure why the link says school reforms but it about how "stop the boats" can affect our relationship with Indo... The libs are already throwing a tantrum over those comments demanding that he retract the statement. The problem is it's true but they can't see the people for the "illegal refugees". @ara I think you are mixing up the Iraq and Afgan conflicts. How so? Neither were sanctioned by the UN. One was a terrorist witch hunt which ended up being the US deposing a regime in the Taliban whom I might add are now having talks with the Afghan government on a peace process. Fat lot of good the US and their allies going in there eh? The other being a WMD witch hunt. Where are those WMD's by the way? Fat lot of good the US and their allies going in there eh? Brought instability to a region causing massive civilian casualties. Ever wonder why George Bush senior didn't depose Saddam? Back to the supposed illegals and the boats. My family emigrated here in 51. Were processed on the mainland (a camp in Northam) and even back then the attitude of the Aussies at the time was the same as it was now. Only it was more popular to call European refugees Nazi's which was the exact thing they were running away from. Same when my Mrs parents emigrated here in the 80's. They were escaping communism but, yep, you guessed it. They were accused of being communists by the Aussies. Now it's the flavour of the day to call anyone who emigrates here a terrorist. Only now, a large number of those coming here are escaping wars we started, or the aftermath of wars we started. Either way I'm glad that Rudd is serving it up to Abbott. It's about time someone did it. |
06:13pm 28/06/13 Permalink
The party faithful:
- hate illegal entrants - it's queue jumping no matter what you or any UNHCR report says - respect our country having some CONTROL over who comes into our borders - hate the fact that our taxes pay for free s*** for other people who don't even live here - hate the fact that Indonesia has a thriving economy in areas courtesy of economic refugees seeking a lifestyle change - hate the fact that people get onto these boats paying tens of thousands of dollars knowing there is a high likelihood they wont get taken to their destination or they may die and they still do it - and then Aussies have to answer their distress calls from their own greed and stupidity (we don't like it when we have to undertake expensive needless rescues of our own sailors). I would be all for withdrawing from the convention. Spending billions of dollars on refugees when our indigenous folk still have major issues. It's nuts. |
06:17pm 28/06/13 Permalink
I'm actually trying to find any evidence of this, can someone help me out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holsworthy_Barracks_terror_plot http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/barracks-terror-three-should-have-got-life-20130617-2odqf.html Aweys, who came to Australia in 1998 after spending six years in a refugee camp in Ethiopia and is married with four children, claimed "everyone was happy" with the Black Saturday bushfires on February 7 "as a punishment for this country". El Sayed, who came to Australia in 2007 and is married with one child, had portrayed himself at the Preston mosque as a charitable, devout, good Muslim man when he was secretly involved in the terrorist plot. The third man had only been in Australia 3 months. |
06:20pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Tony Abbott: Malcolm Turnbull Invented The Internet In Australia
http://www.gizmodo.com.au/2013/06/tony-abbott-malcolm-turnbull-invented-the-internet-in-australia/ “We have a strong and credible broadband policy because the man who has devised it, the man who will implement it virtually invented the Internet in this country. Thank you so much, Malcolm Turnbull.” |
06:28pm 28/06/13 Permalink
So are you saying Abbott made an exaggerated claim like
"There will no no Carbon Tax under a government I lead" or "Climate change is the biggesst moral challenge of our time" or "The burgers taste better at Hungry Jack's" ZOMG STOP THE PRESSES |
06:31pm 28/06/13 Permalink
So are you saying Abbott made an exaggerated claim like "There will no no Carbon Tax under a government I lead" or"Climate change is the biggesst moral challenge of our time" or"The burgers taste better at Hungry Jack's"ZOMG STOP THE PRESSES I prefer Abbott's gaff when he said "if it's not written down, it's not true" referring to the fact that everything he says is a lie unless he writes it down. Yet you ignore that but call Julia "Juliar". Also, Gillard's claim Re the carbon tax was compromised for the fact that she had to deal with the greens and independents to form a minority government. Why do you think Abbott wasn't able to form a minority government? |
06:39pm 28/06/13 Permalink
So are you saying Abbott made an exaggerated claim like "There will no no Carbon Tax under a government I lead" or"Climate change is the biggesst moral challenge of our time" or"The burgers taste better at Hungry Jack's"ZOMG STOP THE PRESSES So, about that 'stop the boats' policy infi? Any thoughts for us on the illegality of asylum seeking, and our role and responsibilities as signatories to the Refugee Convention? Wouldn't the easiest way to 'stop the boats' be to just ditch the convention and make the act of arriving by boat a crime? Tony: "It just underlines the point that if Australians want to see a change of government then they have to vote out their Labor member." Holy s*** why didn't I think of that! Genius! |
06:57pm 28/06/13 Permalink
20mm deck gun rounds would sort this who boat problem out
|
07:05pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Simply need to withdraw from the convention. It gives us control over our borders. At the moment the tail is wagging the dog.
|
07:39pm 28/06/13 Permalink
apprently infi is from australia in the 1940's!
|
07:43pm 28/06/13 Permalink
I'm actually trying to find any evidence of this, can someone help me out? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holsworthy_Barracks_terror_plot http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/barracks-terror-three-should-have-got-life-20130617-2odqf.html Aweys, who came to Australia in 1998 after spending six years in a refugee camp in Ethiopia and is married with four children, claimed "everyone was happy" with the Black Saturday bushfires on February 7 "as a punishment for this country". El Sayed, who came to Australia in 2007 and is married with one child, had portrayed himself at the Preston mosque as a charitable, devout, good Muslim man when he was secretly involved in the terrorist plot. The third man had only been in Australia 3 months. Nowhere does it say any of them arrived by boat. All of them were Australian citizens and look to have developed their fundamentalism locally. This article also from fairfax says El Sayed was born in Melbourne. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/terror-on-tap-20101223-196i2.html In any case that plot just supports my point. That terrorist aren't arriving by boat as terrorists. I'm not saying terrorism can't come from those that have arrived as refugees originally. I'm saying its stupid and pointless to send a trained operative on a risky boat trip when there are much better means. |
08:07pm 28/06/13 Permalink
May I ask what is the reason for 'controlling the borders' in the first place? Why can't someone choose to be an Australian citizen and that's the end of it?
Warning: any obstacle you suggest to me probably has a better solution than whatever the government does now. |
08:38pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Nowhere does it say any of them arrived by boat. All of them were Australian citizens and look to have developed their fundamentalism locally. This article also from fairfax says El Sayed was born in Melbourne. Hahah didn't you hear, all swarthy-lookin people are innigants! Simply need to withdraw from the convention. It gives us control over our borders. At the moment the tail is wagging the dog. I got nothing. Seriously, dude, what the f***. |
09:04pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Would it be ok to take 1 million refugees in Australia?
|
09:10pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Hyperbole much?
Also, this is the first election ever that I wont be preferenceing the Coalition over ALP. (But still above Greens) |
09:28pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Why 1 million? why not 10 million?
If an international crisis called for it, perhaps. We're a part of the international community, after all. I don't understand the negative view against refugees. |
09:28pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Wow, Tony has already started attacking the ALP and basically calling people names, it is all he has been doing for the last 3 years it seems. Here was his chance to change strategy for the better and bring on his policies, to pull the spotlight on his government being pretty stable and solid expierence..
But no, instead he just does what amounts to dropping school yard insults, and you want this man as your countries leader? I'd rather Krudd as a leader than Tony, yeah year the party is the thing but it still has a leader that represents the nation. You want it to be Tony and his I don't really have much in the way of policies because I spend all my time bagging out other people. That guy. |
09:33pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Vash, who pays to house feed and provide medical care to 1 million refugees? And it isn't hyperbole much, Indonesia with 300m people is our next door neighbour.
|
09:41pm 28/06/13 Permalink
May I ask what is the reason for 'controlling the borders' in the first place? Why can't someone choose to be an Australian citizen and that's the end of it?Warning: any obstacle you suggest to me probably has a better solution than whatever the government does now. Yeh lets not control our borders! Just let everyone and anyone fly/boat/swim to Australian shores and come out onto the streets without any checks, passports, visa's or anything like that. What could possibly go wrong with a surge of 100+ million people coming to Australia for work from third world countries? /rollseyes If you actually have to ask "what is the reason for controlling our borders" there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with you. It's why retards in groups such as the Greens etc can't seem to understand that willingly letting people just swamp our shores unchecked is a retarded idea. |
09:44pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Well did anyone check you? What if you were to have a million babies? Why are they 'our' shores? Who decided that and isn't it a little unfair that the refugees didn't get a say in that? Don't we need people to do work? They'd probably do it for room and board, lets work something out.
Isn't this really about being afraid of darkies? Seems like it's pretty easy to get in from a white country. |
09:55pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Why is this constantly a race thing. I don't care about race, I care about expecting entry without doing any paperwork or preparation. Just turning up. And under the guise of asylum these economic refugees can just take a number thanks. To compare a refugee claiming to be from Sri Lanka that travels thousands of kilometers, hops numerous countries and lays a people smuggler ten thousand dollars to get to Australia vs. A Syrian that packed their bag and fled to Lebanon or Jordan. One is fair dinkum and the other is just setting themselves up.
|
10:05pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Rudd claims turning back the boats could lead to War with Indonesia.
HES ALREADY OUTTA CONTROL |
10:37pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Why is this constantly a race thing. I don't care about race, I care about expecting entry without doing any paperwork or preparation Are you stupid or being deceptive ? People coming by boat pay far more than the plane entrants, and spend a lot longer getting here. |
11:46pm 28/06/13 Permalink
everyone who wants the boats stopped for some reason is racist? that's kind of an exaggeration, and an untestable proposition anyway I gave 3 options insom? You chose to misrepresent that ... We are well under "refugeed" ... we have very few boats rocking up on our doorstep to pretend otherwise has an agenda. What's yours insom ? Perhaps my 3 didn't get your position ? ... explain away ? ... |
11:54pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Well did anyone check you? What if you were to have a million babies? Why are they 'our' shores? Who decided that and isn't it a little unfair that the refugees didn't get a say in that? Don't we need people to do work? They'd probably do it for room and board, lets work something out.Isn't this really about being afraid of darkies? Seems like it's pretty easy to get in from a white country. What a terrible strawman argument =\ Can't tell if you are trolling or actually being serious.......... Rudd claims turning back the boats could lead to War with Indonesia. Great logic from the Labor party isn't it? Turning back an Indonesian boat on its way to Australia could cause a war. It's laughable. It's the same stupid logic that thermite has where he asks "why do we need to control our borders" |
11:55pm 28/06/13 Permalink
Thermite is not being serious. It's a faulty humour like when he tries to tell foreign jokes translated into English.
People coming by boat pay far more than the plane entrants, and spend a lot longer getting here. Hey they have paid fair and square for their free housing food and medical! |
12:01am 29/06/13 Permalink
It really says something absolutely terrible about the Liberal Party that the direction this thread has gone is their main contribution to national discourse.
|
12:06am 29/06/13 Permalink
Keep in mind Labor's policy will move more to the right on this issue. Why? Because it's what Australians want. Rudd is being pressured by back benchers to change many of their current policies back closer to the Coalition.
|
12:14am 29/06/13 Permalink
What a terrible strawman argument =\ Can't tell if you are trolling or actually being serious.......... I'm serious and not even vaguely a strawman, since we're not having an argument? Why is this constantly a race thing. I don't care about race, I care about expecting entry without doing any paperwork or preparation. Just turning up. But whyyyy? It seems like people in Australia just don't want other people also being in Australia? It is surely some sort of irrational fear type thing, if not xenophobia then something else along those lines? Like when you like a band and then other people like it so then you get annoyed. |
12:22am 29/06/13 Permalink
The Refugee thang is a vote winner in the Western Sydney seats.
That's why Labor is looking for a quick solution. |
12:22am 29/06/13 Permalink
I gotta tell ya i am all for keeping tight controls on immigration but seriously dont we have more.pressing issues than illegal immigrants? Id point the finger at 457 visas before picking on boats people. Even then there are more important things like health and education and aged care and how we look after our aging citizens tbat have made a life of contributing to the country.
|
12:43am 29/06/13 Permalink
Even then there are more important things like health and education and aged care and how we look after our aging citizens tbat have made a life of contributing to the country. We could use the $1.2b that has blown out in refugee costs on those things you mentioned. ... That's also an answer to thermite's intentionally obtuse but whyyyy. |
12:45am 29/06/13 Permalink
What bugs me about the boat people issue is certain politicians use it as a red herring to distract people from more pressing s***. It stirs up emotion well beyond what it actually should and those dirty f*****s know it. Its simply become a cheap thoughtless means of drumming up bulls*** votes and it makes us all look like idiots, which as it happens goes on to feed our politicians belief thats that is is exactly what we are. How else can you explain Abbotts ability to look like a giant dunce in front of a camera yet somehow maintain his position as lib leader, its f*****g embarrassing.
|
01:21am 29/06/13 Permalink
Can someone explain how someone as idiotic as Abbot is liberal leader? There's a lot of others to pick from, Turnbull has more than half the braincell Abott has, Costello could explain policies better than what's being done so far.
|
05:56am 29/06/13 Permalink
waaaah, i dont want to pay EVEN MOAR TAX to deal with these poor people.
ITS OUTRAGEOUS AND IMPACTING ON THE QUALITY OF MY AWESOME LIFE. waaaah. |
06:35am 29/06/13 Permalink
Can someone explain how someone as idiotic as Abbot is liberal leader?One single solitary person in the caucus liked him more than they did Turnbull. That's the sad reality that oddly enough is not mentioned much. |
07:20am 29/06/13 Permalink
So he got in by a vote in his own party that was slimmer than that which got gillard in laat election taking people from outside her own party. Thats pretty funny, i wonder if any of the libs who voted for him now feel like total d*******s?
|
09:05am 29/06/13 Permalink
unless they are d*******s themselves, youd have to hope so.
|
09:19am 29/06/13 Permalink
Bit of a double edged blade that is though unfortunately.
I am not a lib fan by any stretch of the imagination but i kind of liked ole Mal, at least he had something to say and didnt go outright catatonic when he was asked a hard question. S*** id prefer abbott to say no comment because at least that shows some kind of thought. As it stand right now the only thing thats seems to be on his mind when a hard question gets asked is RUN!!!! |
09:25am 29/06/13 Permalink
So he got in by a vote in his own party that was slimmer than that which got gillard in laat election taking people from outside her own party. Thats pretty funny, What's funny is that Mal copped it on the chin and united behind his leader. Rudd was a sore loser, destabilised the party during the 2010 election, leaked continuously behind Gillard's back and then was rewarded for this treachery by being rehanded the leadership. That is what you call a toxic organisational culture. |
03:08pm 29/06/13 Permalink
We are well under "refugeed" ... we have very few boats rocking up on our doorstep to pretend otherwise has an agenda. What's yours insom ? Perhaps my 3 didn't get your position ? ... explain away ? ... my position is it's not about race, it's about reducing the dangerous practice of people smuggling if it were a bunch of poms and other white people rocking up in boats we'd still be concerned about it, or at least I prefer to think so - but again this is an untestable proposition because it would never happen |
03:17pm 29/06/13 Permalink
Screaming "OMG RACIST" is just the lazy argument for people who support an open borders policy, "anyone can come straight in and walk on down the street" policy. It usually comes from the Greens and other far left wing extremist groups.
|
03:37pm 29/06/13 Permalink
That is what you call a toxic organisational culture. So is one where the leader of a party continually attacks another party, over and over and over. To try and pull them down as far as possible. Instead of just going on about what their party can do and how they are better. This is what is called a toxic organisation. Both political parties do it. I don't even know of the Liberals policies very much. Going to their website doesn't help, it is just spam of how bad Labor is, that is pretty bad. You want this sort of thing as the leading organisation of our country? I don't. |
04:07pm 29/06/13 Permalink
This is what is called a toxic organisation. The Coalition has heaps of policy, published and available. The media is not interested in that, they prefer a bloodsport. Not to mention, the Government is the one with HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of public servants running the country, the Opposition has ZERO resources for policy development. A Coalition provides transparency and scrutiny to the Government. It is expected to identify the Government's faults and test the strength of the Government's baloney figures like their surpluses they trot out every budget based on pure fiction, much like a defense tests the prosecution's case. This is not a hand holding ceremony. Government is serious business and there will be some cuts and bruises. If you cannot handle the attacks, don't make outlandish policy claims and when you f*** up admit it instead of pretending that's what you intended all along.... I would submit that the Opposition's close scrutiny of Rudd and Gillard's monumental failures show a) they are ready to govern because they are equally across the material and b) is what an Opposition is expected to do otherwise all the government's f***ups would go uncriticised in Parliament and then you would be complaining the only opposition we have is The Australian Newspaper. |
04:16pm 29/06/13 Permalink
Do you expect the Oppossition to ignore all of the government's f***ups?
|
05:32pm 29/06/13 Permalink
What could possibly go wrong with a surge of 100+ million people coming to Australia for work from third world countries? /rollseyes I really struggle to understand this. For a start 100+ million yeah what ever. But even if they did come in those numbers what do you think would actually happen? Emigration is categorically a good thing. Emigration turned the USA into a super power, send us your poor, your sick, your huddled masses ring a bell? Ireland was a third world country when they started emigrating en masse. The result, a massive cheap labour force. I get bringing a bit of order to control crime and disease but locking people up for years at a time is f*****g retarded. The cost just isn't justified by the supposed risks. |
07:22pm 29/06/13 Permalink
But even if they did come in those numbers what do you think would actually happen? Well for starters, there would be no Australia as a nation because you have 100 million new people who have different cultures/different allegiances. Do you think 100 million people would instantly share the Australian culture/way and have allegiance to Australia the second they immigrate here now? Even now with our immigration program, large portions of immigrants that come here don't share our values(democracy etc) and don't have allegiance their new country and even some hate us. Demographics determine the culture/values of a country. |
07:34pm 29/06/13 Permalink
Yeah and people who are like 9th generation Boston still identify as Irish dude.
It's really not the deal you think it is. |
07:37pm 29/06/13 Permalink
How Infi thinks the current opposition appear (particularly Abbott):
http://i.imgur.com/szYtyYf.jpg How Abbott actually appears: http://i.imgur.com/jWHUh6B.jpg Sure all the media is interested in bloodsport, but that's why when you're asked a question you turn it around into a proposal of what should be done. Present a clear alternative rather than trying to default into an electoral win. Maybe people would actually respect politicians then... maybe. Either way, I would submit that he constant negatives show they are too scared to commit themselves to a particular approach, and therefore they are not ready to lead. |
12:45am 30/06/13 Permalink
Do you expect the Oppossition to ignore all of the government's f***ups? HI FRIEND |
12:56am 30/06/13 Permalink
Here's 12 minutes of Tony Abbott not f*****g up, but merely being Tony Abbott - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WqnTrG204
|
08:42am 30/06/13 Permalink
Here's 12 minutes of Tony Abbott not f*****g up, but merely being Tony Abbott - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-WqnTrG204 Ahaha, the old dude at the end in the shops was the best. Mal Fraser/Paul Keating are spot on at the end. Labor are so useless on promoting what they've achieved and giving it back to the Liberals. They should probably hire the ex-PMs as speach writers. |
09:35am 30/06/13 Permalink
argh, i got about 4 minutes into that video and had to turn it off :(
|
10:23am 30/06/13 Permalink
10:57am 30/06/13 Permalink
tony can be a tool but he has the support of his party and is surrounded by extremely capable people. he also seeks out and follows the advice of those who are experts in areas he isn't familiar with. being a good prime minister shouldn't necessarily be about personally having all of the answers. it is about being able to lead well and maintaining control of those in his party in order to provide an efficient and unified government that is capable of getting things done, which he can. people get so hung up on 'oh, tony's a woman hating god nut that will impose his personal ideals on the country,' which simply isn't the case.
|
11:37am 30/06/13 Permalink
tony can be a tool but he has the support of his party and is surrounded by extremely capable people. Yeh I'm not worried so much about him authoring policy, because he is clearly incapable of that. Its him talking to world leaders and diplomats as our nation's leader that gives me the heeby f*****g jeebies. Is the blank stare going to be his go-to during tense negotiations? |
02:44pm 30/06/13 Permalink
It's hilarious watching people parrot "omg tony is so bad" "omg he is an idiot" when there is nothing really to justify it. He's already proven himself as capable. He was a minister in 2 different ministries in a very successful government. He's also clearly very intelligent. They don't give Rhodes scholars out to any person.
.Is the blank stare going to be his go-to during tense negotiations? The blank stare is only reserved for idiot journalists who try to take things out of context for "gotcha" type journalism. It works very well doesn't it? |
03:00pm 30/06/13 Permalink
He's also clearly very intelligent. lulz |
03:01pm 30/06/13 Permalink
It works very well doesn't it? Obviously, because it gained him a lot of respect and didn't make him look like an idiot at all. |
03:13pm 30/06/13 Permalink
Tony Abbott has ducked a challenge to debate Kevin Rudd on the economy. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/abbott-ducks-rudds-call-for-economy-debate-20130630-2p4w9.html Goes to show how much of a coward Abbott really is by not wanting to debate something as important as economics is as it will show how little he knows before an election. |
03:14pm 30/06/13 Permalink
I'm so looking forward to the election debate. He gets really flustered during hard interviews.
|
03:18pm 30/06/13 Permalink
He is depriving Rudd of face to face airtime.
Rudd is very good at debating Abbott not so good. Debate the Economy ? The only reason we don't resemble Britain is the Mining Boom and the masses of money flowing into Government coffers. Yet Labor couldn't manage the Surplus they promised. That really is all that needs to be said about the Economy. |
03:20pm 30/06/13 Permalink
You're forgetting the GFC that came a year after Labor got into power. Howard was riding the wave of the mining boom, and according to the IMF, Howard was more wasteful than all recent Labor governments.
The stimulus was expensive, but required, and now the economy is now seeing a downturn, it's obvious it wont be easy to return to surplus. |
03:29pm 30/06/13 Permalink
Labor spent the paycheck before it came in.
If the GFC was such a big concern then why didn't Labor spend less ? |
03:36pm 30/06/13 Permalink
Posts: 10401 Location: Brisbane, Queensland Labor spent the paycheck before it came in. If the GFC was such a big concern then why didn't Labor spend less ? http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/grogonomics/2013/jun/28/austerity-talk-the-talk-hockey |
04:10pm 30/06/13 Permalink
The blank stare is only reserved for idiot journalists who try to take things out of context for "gotcha" type journalism. It works very well doesn't it? the real irony is that Rudd makes a dismissive and childish remark like "I've gotta zip." every time he is confronted with issues he doesn't want to discuss, the media is cool with that. I love when Tony doesn't answer stupid journo questions and treats them with the contempt they deserve. Fair Shake of the Sauce Bottle? WTF does that even mean, it did not exist in the Australian lexicon prior to Rudd saying it. I now get to republish all of the Ruddbot articles I have diligently filed away. |
05:42pm 30/06/13 Permalink
It just goes to show how stupid Australian voters are when Labors vote increaes 10% just because of a leader change. Screw their crap policies, countless mistakes and childish behaviour.
|
06:32pm 30/06/13 Permalink
I doubt people are parroting that Abbot would not make a good PM, just watch some of the various interviews and question time ... you can't present yourself during these occassions then it doesn't bode well. The excuse that he has great people backing him, well that's what I mean those people should be at the front if they want my vote. Basically at the moment it seems you've got choice between a 'turd sandwich and a douche bag'.
If a captain of a ship has no idea how to read sea conditions, manage crew and doing the functions on a boat there will be trouble. The same goes for many other leadership positions such as prime ministerships. |
08:11pm 30/06/13 Permalink
The RoboRudd is back, the same 2010 one journos and voters hated. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/same-old-robot-rudd/story-fni0cwl5-1226671888389
|
08:48pm 30/06/13 Permalink
If a captain of a ship has no idea how to read sea conditions, manage crew and doing the functions on a boat there will be trouble. The same goes for many other leadership positions such as prime ministerships. I certainly like the Abbott = Captain Pugwash analogy. That'd mean Rudd = Cut Throat Jake, a fitting moniker at this point in time. |
09:36pm 30/06/13 Permalink
we might be quite low on the list when it comes to letting in asylum seekers but we do quite well when it comes to general immigration. ultimately, we have to deal with the reality that their is strong anti-foreign bias in the electorate. i think it is much better to take 1/3 of the number of asylum seekers and let in twice as many immigrations. take a look at Sweden which is high on the asylum list. it has a net migration of 1.65 while we have a net migration of 5.93. also take a look at the percentage of foreign born people by country. we have similar levels of foreign born people (19.93) to canada (18.76), new zealand (15.48) and the only 'european' state higher than us is switzerland with 22.89. australia is able to let in such high numbers of immigrants by channeling the electorate's anti-foreign bias against a small group of immigrants.
|
10:48pm 30/06/13 Permalink
and look at what happens when scapegoating boat people becomes a less effective political strategy. political parties start coming after the general immigration programs like 457 visas. if you want to help people outside of australia the best strategy is to sacrifice a small number to appease the anti-foreign bias in the electorate while running massive general immigration programs.
|
10:57pm 30/06/13 Permalink
From peterthepossums link:
KRuddMP's inflated self importance had not translated to any achievements. Instead there was the Copenhagen climate summit and the "ratf#@r" Chinese, the delay of the ETS, the Oceanic Viking standoff which re-started the people smuggler trade, the pink batts debacle, the school halls waste, the 2020 summit which came to nothing. FAIR SHAKE OF THE SAUCE BOTTLE |
11:16pm 30/06/13 Permalink
The 4:15 mark of that video to the 4:20 mark is some of the most painfull video i think i have ever seen from a public figure. Thr guy is near catatonic, seriously how can anyone f*****g vote for that?
|
12:25am 01/07/13 Permalink
From peterthepossums link: He left Angus Houston waiting outside his office for 8 hours............ that speaks volumes about his ego. Thinks people have plenty of time just to wait around for him. Edit: Looks like Australians arent so stupid after all. MOST Australians believe Kevin Rudd is still the chaotic and dysfunctional leader he was accused of being by dissident colleagues who publicly attacked him before his first leadership challenge in February last year. http://www.news.com.au/national-news/galaxy-daily-telegraph-poll-reveals-voters-dont-believe-kevin-rudd-has-changed-since-first-stint-as-pm/story-fncynjr2-1226672232561 WHOOMP, THERE IT IS |
01:26am 01/07/13 Permalink
06:10am 01/07/13 Permalink
You guys supporting the Liberals I can at least understand, but to constantly defend that weirdo Abbott is just funny.
This is the guy who is supposed to represent our country and he can't even react to a question he doesn't like from a regular journalist without standing there in silence, twitching like a psycho for an incredibly uncomfortable amount of time. What's he going to do when an important world leader asks him a question he doesn't like? Full-on epileptic fit maybe? You can say that the journalist was being unnecessarily emotive or that the question was unfairly loaded or any number of excuses, but none of them explain why he didn't just calmly reply to that sentiment and walk away. None of that can explain his twitching psychotically for 30 seconds in complete silence. I know you guys desperately want the party you support to win the election, but is it really worth the indignity of trying to keep a straight face while claiming that Abbott is a normal guy who will make a good leader and representative of our country? |
08:40am 01/07/13 Permalink
I've said it and I'll say it again. Tony Abbott is the Australian version of George W. Bus**
|
11:01am 01/07/13 Permalink
I'd probably prefer Dubya to Abbott. I saw him a few times on US talk shows during his first election campaign and he actually comes across as a warm, genuine guy in an informal situation. He's one of those strangely interesting people I'd like to have a beer with someday to talk to and get a sense of the man.
Abbott always looks awkward and twitchy the moment he has to go off carefully prepared statements. |
11:06am 01/07/13 Permalink
Abbott always looks awkward and twitchy the moment he has to go off carefully prepared statements. as compared to Rudd who just threatens war with Indonesia... |
11:09am 01/07/13 Permalink
as compared to Rudd who just threatens war with Indonesia... I thought what he said was that in his opinion the Coalition's confrontational attitude to stopping the boats - by forcefully turning ships back to Indonesian waters - would strain the relationship in the Timor Sea. As much as Indonesian diplomats demurred and said it wasn't so, I don't see how upping the ante between Australian war vessels and Indonesian merchant shipping wouldn't strain relations? Anyway infi, you mentioned (in a passing, throwaway kinda way) that the Coalition has lots of awesome policy. Care to take the time out to spruik these policies, or is your QGL political time solely about shots at Labor? Lets hear about it, all I know to date is that we get less internets, gays can't marry and the budget's gonna get slashed. Is there anything aspirational in there? And no, don't tell me to go read it myself, this is the whole problem with your side of politics, you don't seem to be selling your alternate vision with any sort of enthusiasm. We get that you hate Labor, after 5 pages we really do, can you please explain what's good about the Coalition's side of the chamber? Or is the whole story really some broad, placeholder policy while you step up the attack machine and hope nobody looks behind the curtain or thinks too hard about Abbott in the big chair? |
11:53am 01/07/13 Permalink
I thought taking shots at Labor IS the Coalition's policy? Well, that and 'stop the boats'.
|
12:02pm 01/07/13 Permalink
I thought taking shots at Labor IS the Coalition's policy? Well, that and 'stop the boats'. Abbott parroting "stop the boats" is not that different to Hodor grunting "Hodor". |
12:10pm 01/07/13 Permalink
12:26pm 01/07/13 Permalink
Its not about genuine refugees
its about a failed policy that lures desperate people to roll the dice and take a risk to travel here on dodgy Boats run by Organised Crime in Indonesia. http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/detention3_thumb.jpg |
12:30pm 01/07/13 Permalink
He's also clearly very intelligent. dude was a rhodes scholar. might be socially retarded but lacking intelligence he is not. |
12:30pm 01/07/13 Permalink
hogfather: http://liberal.org.au/real-solutions/
liberals have plenty of policy, but that doesn't interest a) the media; or b) the voter so it's not highly sought after. I am particularly keen to seen workplace relations policy rectified given the abortion that labor has created. If KRudd wasn't straigh out shooting from the hip why would he mention the Konfrontasi? The guy is a loose cannon. He loves to talk and sound like he knows more but he really is just shooting his mouth off. |
12:40pm 01/07/13 Permalink
I thought taking shots at Labor IS the Coalition's policy? Well, that and 'stop the boats'. That's sums their entire campaign strategy for the past 20 years and its f*****g pathetic. Anyone recall that incredibly juvenile ad they ran some years back that had a loop of Gareth Evens dancing in an attempt to demean him? It was kind of funny in a childish way but it left me feeling like is this the best they've got? I am sorry but I simply can't respect that |
12:50pm 01/07/13 Permalink
liberals have plenty of policy, but that doesn't interest a) the media; or b) the voter so it's not highly sought after. Their main problem is that they don't convey it very well. They need better spin doctors to teach Abbott and co how to get the message across. |
12:56pm 01/07/13 Permalink
campaign ads by both major parties have always been pathetic and childish. to claim one is any worse than the other is fairly one eyed. australian politics in general is pretty f*****g lame.
|
01:07pm 01/07/13 Permalink
hogfather: http://liberal.org.au/real-solutions/liberals have plenty of policy, but that doesn't interest a) the media; or b) the voter so it's not highly sought after.I am particularly keen to seen workplace relations policy rectified given the abortion that labor has created. Snipped out the obligatory shot at Labor, trying to keep this focused here :) What exactly are the intended workplace reforms? The link you sent me to sends me to a PDF at http://lpa.webcontent.s3.amazonaws.com/realsolutions/LPA%20Policy%20Booklet%20210x210_pages.pdf that appears to be completely and entirely fluff, lots of broad talk about the problems and listening to the community and talking about coming up with solutions, and think tanks and commissions once they are in power .... but no actual detail? For example it goes on at length about productivity issues, working days lost, militarisation of the workforce etc, says they will be changing stuff to address this ... but doesn't say what will be really be changed in terms of legislation? Is this Work Choices? Same deal with the 'back in the black' s***. What exactly will be cut, or what taxes will be added, to make this happen? All we know so far is the carbon tax is out ... but we're keeping the related rebates and offsets somehow. Also income tax cuts. Details guys? What will be axed? We will get businesses growing by cutting red tape costs to businesses by $1 billion each year Sounds great! I'm a businessman! ... which tape is being cut, though? Why does page 34 have a graph of electricity price increases under Labor? What does Federal Labor have to do with the local provision of electricity by private enterprise?! Something stood out on page 8: We have a detailed plan to build a world class 5-Pillar economy that will deliver more jobs and generate the real wealth necessary to finance better government services for Australian families. Sounds great! So where the f*** is it? |
01:08pm 01/07/13 Permalink
'We don't know what to cut until we get into power, but we just know there are things that need to be cut.'
|
01:18pm 01/07/13 Permalink
liberals have plenty of policy, but that doesn't interest a) the media; or b) the voter so it's not highly sought after. It's pretty high level and doesn't contain much details, especially the direct action plan. |
01:59pm 01/07/13 Permalink
Doug Cameron, the far left wing socialist is a new pick in Rudds cabinet. What a great pick /rollseyes
You guys supporting the Liberals I can at least understand, but to constantly defend that weirdo Abbott is just funny.This is the guy who is supposed to represent our country and he can't even react to a question he doesn't like from a regular journalist without standing there in silence He did react to it, infact he responded 3 times to it yet the idiot journalist kept going on with it despite Tony telling him he had completely taken what Tony said out of context and that he won't be indulging in "gotcha" journalism. The journalist obviously didn't get the message so Tony stood and stared at him. I do the same thing myself. If i keep having to repeat myself to someone i just stand and stare at them blankely. When they say "wtf" i say "I'v already answered you" in this case, Tony said "I'v given you the answer you deserve" I thought what he said was that in his opinion the Coalition's confrontational attitude to stopping the boats - by forcefully turning ships back to Indonesian waters - would strain the relationship in the Timor Sea. That's just absolute crap. Turning an Indonesian boat around and turning it back to Indonesia which is the country the ship belongs to wouldn't cause "war" or "confrontation" "OMG, THEY SENT OUR BOAT BACK WE BETTER SEND THE NAVY OUT" The s*** logic is just hilarious. The Australian government just needs to grow a backbone and stop groveling to the Indonesians. State the facts, which is that illegal boats depart Indonesia aided by the Indonesian authorities. They are Indonesia's boats so they will be turned around and sent back. Don't like it? BAD LUCK. Stop your authorities from facilitating people smuggling. |
02:01pm 01/07/13 Permalink
campaign ads by both major parties have always been pathetic and childish. to claim one is any worse than the other is fairly one eyed. australian politics in general is pretty f*****g lame. that's complete bulls***, find me an ad where labor has got a lib on a loop dancing looking like a complete f*****g tool. Negative campaigning is a hallmark of the libs and has been for a very long time now the ALP hasn't come anywhere close to sinking to the same level of bulls***. Dude please find me at least one ad that comes close to what we've sat through from the libs in past years. I don't have to find any of the libs doing because its a commonly known fact that that's how they do s***. |
03:22pm 01/07/13 Permalink
Hogfather, it is basic politics to not release all policies before an election but the Coalition has released many detailed policies. As to workplace relations which is all I really care about I found it easily.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=liberal+workplace+relations+policy |
05:21pm 01/07/13 Permalink
Hogfather, it is basic politics to not release all policies before an election How are we supposed to vote on unreleased policies? Thanks for the angsty LMGTFY there too buddy. You're here spruiking to the voters about the Coalition and I'm asking for more info, is that the way you talk to people when you're canvassing who want to listen to your message? Might want to work on your manner if so. Still, another great big, overly wordy document with lots of vague s*** like this: http://i.imgur.com/TN4gtQp.png Which options and recommendations guys? When? I'm a small business owner and these changes actually matter to me, but f***ed if I can find a simple and concise list of what's going to happen to my business if the Libs get in!
What, this abortion? The one that doesn't need major changes? http://i.imgur.com/TH7PkuX.png |
05:42pm 01/07/13 Permalink
06:20pm 01/07/13 Permalink
What, this abortion? The one that doesn't need major changes? the one that during the process of "award modernisation" they managed to increase all the penalties and allowances. where does all the extra money come from to pay for these? the fair work act has been terrible for employers but unless you are getting f***ed up the ass it won't worry you. it seems like you are madly in love with kevin so I'm not going to waste any more of my time. good luck. |
06:36pm 01/07/13 Permalink
it seems like you are madly in love with kevin so I'm not going to waste any more of my time. good luck. jesus aint this the pot calling the kettle black. |
07:06pm 01/07/13 Permalink
A typical deceiving campaign from the far left wing Greens lobby. What their little picture doesn't show is the double digit price percentage rises in cost of living areas such as electricity.
No one said "the sky will fall in" however cost of living was said to go up significantly and it has. |
07:27pm 01/07/13 Permalink
What their little picture doesn't show is the double digit price percentage rises in cost of living areas such as electricity.Because that has nothing to do with the carbon tax, it's because of the "gold-plating" of the network. |
07:35pm 01/07/13 Permalink
No one said "the sky will fall in" however cost of living was said to go up significantly and it has.Tony Abbott said "the sky would fall" and places like Whyalla would be wiped off the face of the planet. You do know the fixed price ETS has added only 0.8% to the cost of living don't you? BTW I am actually consulting to a power company in your home town, Melbourne, at the moment and I can tell you have no idea why prices have risen. |
09:55pm 01/07/13 Permalink
Because that has nothing to do with the carbon tax, it's because of the "gold-plating" of the network. lol what? "gold-plating" of the network price rises are separate from the rises im talking about. Since the carbon tax has been introduced prices have gone up further and it IS because of the carbon tax. Even the government have admitted it, hence why they are distributing this so called "house hold assistance package" that doesn't actually out weight the price rises. Generators pass on 115pc of carbon tax: power report http://www.afr.com/p/national/generators_pass_on_pc_of_carbon_mKngiAXYdyQZY75WFKxE5J |
10:00pm 01/07/13 Permalink
In QLD ... floods have cost more than any carbon or gold plating.
Unless the floods are a result of carbon in which case zomg carbon, hurry up and bring back the drought. |
10:04pm 01/07/13 Permalink
lol what? "gold-plating" of the network price rises are separate from the rises im talking about. Since the carbon tax has been introduced prices have gone up further and it IS because of the carbon tax.You said "double digit percentage rises", the increase due to the carbon tax has been less than 10%. Now have a read of what the Productivity Commision report said: "Average electricity prices have risen by 70 per cent in real terms from June 2007 to December 2012. Spiralling network costs in most states are the main contributor to these increases, partly driven by inefficiencies in the industry and flaws in the regulatory environment." |
10:21pm 01/07/13 Permalink
Isn't the whole point of the carbon tax that energy prices go up so we use less?
We had a shocker bill at the start of the year and stopped being silly now our bill is 5% below the same one last year because we are using less lecky... |
10:30pm 01/07/13 Permalink
I should get some form of tax rebate for how long the weeds are in the backyard.
|
10:57pm 01/07/13 Permalink
The journalist obviously didn't get the message so Tony stood and stared at him. Ok, surely you're taking the piss now. Also, someone mentioned Whyalla, so I feel this video needs reposting. Not as a statement of support or an attack on any particular party, just because its so hilariously bad. |
11:31pm 01/07/13 Permalink
Isn't the whole point of the carbon tax that energy prices go up so we use less? yeah I reckon "zomg energy prices have risen" well... duh |
01:33am 02/07/13 Permalink
Prices of carbon producing energy should go up under the carbon tax which is the whole point of it. If your power bill is stinging you too much now because of the carbon tax then maybe you should look at getting solar?
Here in Perth Synergy prints on my bill the amount which is carbon tax so I can see exactly how much it is costing me, and for my last bill which was $725.95, the carbon tax was a grand total of.....$62.62 including GST. So that is 8.625% nothing really compared to the 57% between 2009 and 2011 and an estimated further 30% between 2011 and 2014. |
02:10am 02/07/13 Permalink
He did react to it, infact he responded 3 times to it yet the idiot journalist kept going on with it despite Tony telling him he had completely taken what Tony said out of context and that he won't be indulging in "gotcha" journalism. The journalist obviously didn't get the message so Tony stood and stared at him.As I said (and you conveniently ignored): You can say that the journalist was being unnecessarily emotive or that the question was unfairly loaded or any number of excuses, but none of them explain why he didn't just calmly reply to that sentiment and walk away. None of that can explain his twitching psychotically for 30 seconds in complete silence. I have no idea what your job is, but I doubt you need to conduct yourself in the manner of someone who is representing their country at the highest level. If you find that you keep having to repeat yourself then you are not being clear enough, either in your answer, or in the fact that you have already given the answer and cannot give any further information. Either way, you are probably just as lacking as Abbott appears to be if you feel that it's appropriate to resort to staring blankly at people. And as for this: True you couldn't, but it is true. Like most Australians in 2007, we were drawn into Labor and Kevin Rudd as a fresh new exciting Prime Minister and government with new and exciting ideas. We had 11+ years of Howard and it felt good having a change.As I said: Obviously there's no way I could ever know one way or the other (and in the end it's totally inconsequential) but based on your first 274 posts here, there is absolutely nothing you can say that would ever lead me to believe that's actually the truth. The fact that you are still trying to pretend that Abbott is the right person to lead the country only serves to convince me of that more. I know people who are strong Liberal supporters (and who don't claim that they voted for Rudd), who are fiercely vocal in their opinion that the Liberals will make a better government than the current Labor government, and even those people have enough intelligence and dignity to say that it's obvious that Abbott will not make a strong leader. Oh and fyi, being a Rhodes Scholar is just a little bit less than zero indication that someone will make a good leader. |
06:00am 02/07/13 Permalink
08:14am 02/07/13 Permalink
Without bothering to read most of this s***** thread, one comment on "gold-plating".
I work for a large QLD electricity company. There is no "gold-plating", literally or figuratively. The govt rules are N-1. That is, for every element in the system, if you take it out of service, there must be enough capacity to route around it. This is why unless there is an extreme weather event, we hardly ever get [non-localised] blackouts any more. With the removal of this rule, any future network augmentation will not be built to this standard. It will be much cheaper to build, but there will be more blackouts. That's the trade-off. Most of the electricity price rises are due to the solar uptake (and the 44c feed-in bungle). The system costs $X per year to maintain. This is spread between all users through the cost per KWh. If a solar generating household pays no bill, they are not paying their share of the network maintenance, even though they still use the network at night and on cloudy days. This forces everyone else to pay extra. It's paradoxical, but the less electricity everyone uses, the more it costs per person to maintain the network. [Legal bulls***: These opinions are my own and do not reflect the opinions of the company I work for. This comment has been approved by the NSA] |
09:30am 02/07/13 Permalink
Yeh I've wondered that Furgle. I think we'll need to see access charges separated from usage (much like water) in coming years as more people take up solar. And feed in tariffs will surely go?
Sounds like the tech gains in solar are going to be in cheaper panels rather than more efficient ones which makes sense as mass production ramps up. If we get to the expected point in 5-10 years where a home can be kitted out with 6kW for only a few grand then that's a dramatic shift in power usage patterns, and the kwh cost for grid energy will need to go through the roof - or access charges will be necessary. |
10:05am 02/07/13 Permalink
Wonder if it would have been better if it had been energex that installed and owned the solar panels on peoples homes. Not sure whether it would have been cost effective but if there was legislation that stated all new homes had to have a 5kW system installed by energex and then the savings of solar power get distributed across a neighborhood rather than the individual.
Of course I have no idea whether that's efficient or not but it's a far more interesting conversation than partisans spilling useless bile at each other. |
10:34am 02/07/13 Permalink
who was the moron who thought up this 44c/hr payment back to solar producer. f*** me.
|
10:53am 02/07/13 Permalink
F*** cheap solar panels. I want cheap batteries.
The biggest hurdle I found when looking at going off the grid was the large capital cost of the battery bank, it makes it so not worth doing. When the 44c/kwh goes and is reduced to a reasonable price a battery bank setup will be a bit better off, however the cost of batteries still stops it. Cheap batteries more than cheap solar will be what causes a shift on mass to home-production of power. |
11:00am 02/07/13 Permalink
Joe seems mad, or does he have b****y face? Heh, I was thinking something else. The rest of them seem focused on something like someone across the table talking, whereas Joe's sitting there staring into space trying to figure out how the hell he managed to get himself into the deep end as Shadow Treasurer. |
11:21am 02/07/13 Permalink
Wonder if it would have been better if it had been energex that installed and owned the solar panels on peoples homes. That sounds like a maintenance access nightmare. Better for homes to be responsible for their own panels than for energex to have to co-ordinate with thousands of individual households in the event that something goes wrong. |
11:25am 02/07/13 Permalink
F*** cheap solar panels. I want cheap batteries. Oh yeh I agree, which is why the feed in tariff system we've set up is loco. Everyone needs the grid for the gap because power storage is exxy, but a growing number of people aren't paying for it! Question though, something niggles me at the back of my mind about going off the power grid. Is it actually legal in suburban municipalities? I vaguelly remember someone saying you're required to maintain a connection to mains power by council? Bulls***? |
11:27am 02/07/13 Permalink
from ALP's youtube channel
you were saying? |
12:12pm 02/07/13 Permalink
Unless you're rural, it's pointless going for an off-grid setup. Bring on cheap panels so we can have widespread uptake and reduce the need for coal fired plants, since we cant afford thorium reactors. |
12:48pm 02/07/13 Permalink
Doesn't solve the need for the network and associated costs. Wind power is currently the cheapest form of power production, over the life of the project. PV solar is actually pretty expensive compared to coal.
|
01:04pm 02/07/13 Permalink
That sounds like a maintenance access nightmare. Better for homes to be responsible for their own panels than for energex to have to co-ordinate with thousands of individual households in the event that something goes wrong.I don't know about that to be honest, there isn't much that goes wrong with the panels themselves, they have like a 20-25 year lifespan so it's not something that would pop up often and the inverter can be installed on the boundary like your meters for unobtrusive access. There is also the possibility that any maintenance could be put on the owners responsibility and it becomes simply another cost of owning a home. My folks have solar and they haven't paid anything after the installation fee, I'd be guessing that it'd only be things like needing the roof repaired/replaced or dealing with storm damage and the like which would incur a cost. Still not saying it's viable, just suggesting it might have ended with a better result than what we have now. |
01:06pm 02/07/13 Permalink
Like any other normal egomaniac and psychopath, the dropping of names to feel important is your number 1 priority.
http://web.stagram.com/p/490350077671380392_30038076 "kruddmp Having a chat with @barackobama" |
02:34pm 02/07/13 Permalink
Like any other normal egomaniac and psychopath, the dropping of names to feel important is your number 1 priority. http://web.stagram.com/p/490350077671380392_30038076 "kruddmp Having a chat with @barackobama"It is clear from that post that this update was posted by Kevvy himself, and clearly not anyone in his PR department. Nope, not at all. |
03:35pm 02/07/13 Permalink
It is clear from that post that this update was posted by Kevvy himself, and clearly not anyone in his PR department. Nope, not at all. Obviously he didn't post it himself, but the strategy of vigorously using social media to promote a cult following of "kevvie" was developed by Kevin and his team. We saw it when he was just a backbencher when he would produce youtube videos of himself, again stroking his ego. It's all about stroking his ego and building this celebrity around him. "HEY LOOK AT ME, IM TALKING TO IMPORTANT PEOPLE" |
04:36pm 02/07/13 Permalink
They all do it to greater/lesser degrees of success. Be it a twitter or a blog or Facebook presence.
I doubt many people assume that it's actually them rather than their media advisors posting. |
04:39pm 02/07/13 Permalink
He's the PM of Australia you waste of internet bandwidth, he is important people. How does "name dropping" or posing on social media boost the ego of the man in the most important position in the country.
If you want to call that ego stroking then what has Tony been doing for the last 3 years with his media stunts every other night? Obviously come election time politicians are going to promote themselves, how f*****g stupid can you possibly get? |
04:42pm 02/07/13 Permalink
"Hey Barack, how about that NSA thing, cobba?"
|
05:42pm 02/07/13 Permalink
Like any other normal egomaniac and psychopath, the dropping of names to feel important is your number 1 priority. Hahaha, the person who claims that Tony Abbott staring blankly while twitching is a normal way to behave (and says they do the same thing) then says that mentioning on Twitter the name of another world leader they're talking to means someone is a psychopath. Trolls gonna troll. https://images.encyclopediadramatica.se/thumb/f/f2/Trollface_More_HD.png/400px-Trollface_More_HD.png |
08:00pm 02/07/13 Permalink
was that in reply to my examples, taipan?
|
04:30am 03/07/13 Permalink
Toothbrushes |
09:05pm 03/07/13 Permalink
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1785094/Malcolm-Fraser-to-campaign-with-Greens:-report
Former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser will campaign with the Greens to prevent Tony Abbott gaining control of the Senate, should he win the upcoming federal election. |
09:36pm 03/07/13 Permalink
It's where he should have been all along.
|
09:40pm 03/07/13 Permalink
Both major parties have bobble heads as leaders ... I blame Rupert Murdoch.
|
10:24pm 03/07/13 Permalink
Rudd was masterful on 7:30 tonight.
He is a one man team, he could be Minister for Everything and people would still vote for him. |
10:52pm 03/07/13 Permalink
Malcolm Fraser, a conservative right wing prime minister is going to campaign for a far-left wing extremist socialist party.
My god...... surely he must have dementia or some other kind of mental health issue because that is just retarded. |
11:37pm 03/07/13 Permalink
He seems to want to talk a lot about campaigning for Sarah Hanson-Young though.
An elaborate pick up scheme from a wiley former PM? Sly dog. Stay on the lookout for news reports of a second trousers incident. |
12:01am 04/07/13 Permalink
Malcolm Fraser, a conservative right wing prime minister is going to campaign for a far-left wing extremist socialist party.My god...... surely he must have dementia or some other kind of mental health issue because that is just retarded. Maybe he just thinks people should be treated like humans? |
01:52pm 04/07/13 Permalink
Maybe he just thinks people should be treated like humans? That is stupid talk, all your political views must be seen through the prism of left or right. |
02:05pm 04/07/13 Permalink
02:31pm 04/07/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim, I'm curious, are you making these yourself?
|
02:56pm 04/07/13 Permalink
anyone see Wednesday Night Fever on ABC1 last night ?
had some big laughs at Rudd. They a did a Tarantino films Palmer election Ad that was hilarious. |
05:16pm 04/07/13 Permalink
HurricaneJim, I'm curious, are you making these yourself? Google ExposingTonyAbbottTheLnpMemesStuff |
05:21pm 04/07/13 Permalink
http://pickeringpost.com/kyola/resources/articles/Zanett napolean.jpg
Some funny stuff on there... http://pickeringpost.com/cartoon/1607 |
11:07am 06/07/13 Permalink
The Napoleon analogy is pretty apt, but I hope Rudd lasts longer than 100 days.
|
12:00pm 06/07/13 Permalink
11:55am 08/07/13 Permalink
Don't you think the Australian public have learned their lesson from the Green Labor coalition?
|
12:07pm 08/07/13 Permalink
I don't remember Rudd being a bad PM, I was quite happy with him, and I'm a sad little c***. Apart from the Environmental stuff with that bald headed f*****, which was quite aggressive policy - but we knew about it before the election - AND it seems more people are coming around on that.
He had his own TV show and then he bought everyone in Australia a Plasma, what a champ I basically lost a block of land in Shoalhaven because Peter Garrett decided paperbark is very important. Still paying rates, not allowed to build. |
12:11pm 08/07/13 Permalink
Don't you think the Australian public have learned their lesson from the Green Labor coalition? I f*****g hope so What was particularly bad about it? The carbon tax? Your beloved Tony supports it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckcH0Wrmy74 The pathetic mining tax in it's current form was done by Julia, Swanny and their buddies in the mining industry. |
03:37pm 08/07/13 Permalink
Vote Greens for unaffordable electricity bills.
Milne wants an Election now. Before Rudd cripples the Carbon Tax. |
04:03pm 08/07/13 Permalink
Love it when the liberals do something wrong and their supporters on here shut up so quickly.
I'm refering to abbott and his not paying money back and newman government giving themselves a pay increase after sacking 14,000 people. |
05:18am 10/07/13 Permalink
poll results are in and its 50/50 with rudd back.
do i dare to dream? |
07:52am 10/07/13 Permalink
It would be pretty amazing if sanity did prevail after some of the poll results seen earlier in the year.
|
07:53am 10/07/13 Permalink
The good, useful version of the NBN may actually still happen! I may not have to cry that I miss out by 1 road!
|
08:28am 10/07/13 Permalink
I thought the Qld MP payrise issue is disgraceful. Mind you Gillard govt gave the exact same pay rise to Federal MPs.
re the TA travel expenses. Don't you think the ALP special minister of State could get one on Abbott he would have? Gary Gray said there was no case to answer. |
08:57am 10/07/13 Permalink
The good, useful version of the NBN may actually still happen! I may not have to cry that I miss out by 1 road! If the LNP get in I'd start making friends with neighbours and run some cat6 ;) |
09:36am 10/07/13 Permalink
I thought the Qld MP payrise issue is disgraceful. Mind you Gillard govt gave the exact same pay rise to Federal MPs. Mind you the Federal Government wasn't axing departments and staff broadscale while giving themselves a payrise. I'm sure in the decade or so Howard was in power MPs got the odd payrise. Its not the payrise so much as the background rhetoric about the Government being broke because evil Labor so sorry we have to fire everyone, now, ahem, show me the moneys?! |
10:40am 10/07/13 Permalink
Yeah the fact that they couldn't find $30M to pay to repair the GC beaches that bring in far more than that annually in tourism revenue yet still manage to put in their pay rise is pretty bad.
I thought wasting money on a weekend detention initiative while simultaneously claiming there wasn't money in the budget to keep schools open was bad. |
11:58am 10/07/13 Permalink
I urge that if you are opposed to these outrageous MP payrises please write to Premier Newman.
http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/tools/contact.aspx |
12:28pm 10/07/13 Permalink
sent:- I also am not happy about the 23% increase in power prices. Considering this was an election promise as well as the possibility of the carbon tax being repealed.
|
02:11pm 10/07/13 Permalink
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151779013207269&set=a.141625972268.140299.71784212268&type=1&theater
Still stroking the ego. Notice how the facebook page is now called "Kevin Rudd and Labor" They are trying to win the election solely on the celebrity of rudd and Labor is just some added on extra. They know Labor is a tarnished brand. He's been flooding these selfies and other ego photos for weeks now. |
02:18pm 10/07/13 Permalink
^ why don't you just stop following him on facebook so you don't have to see it?
|
02:32pm 10/07/13 Permalink
glynd it's his only source of material to attacked labor on as the liberals have no policies they're all about hating and not about fixing.
|
03:05pm 10/07/13 Permalink
poor peter is going to be subjected to a lot more awesome kruddler over the next 3.5 years
|
03:13pm 10/07/13 Permalink
I urge that if you are opposed to these outrageous MP payrises please write to Premier Newman.http://www.thepremier.qld.gov.au/tools/contact.aspx Done, thanks for the link. In an environment where your Government is making large cuts to the public sector and many are losing their jobs in the name of the bottom line, it is absolutely heinous for your MPs to vote in a pay rise. |
03:18pm 10/07/13 Permalink
why don't you just stop following him on facebook so you don't have to see it? Because he secretly loves Rudd just like everyone else. Plus one time at his school Rudd came and showed him the "labor" |
03:32pm 10/07/13 Permalink
You aren't voting for Labor anymore
Its the Kevin Rudd Party. Where Kevin makes the rules that declare him Emperor for Life. http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/stop-power-cut-offs-for-poor-sa-agency/story-e6frfku9-1226676872751 "Families can't survive without gas and electricity, but currently there's no safety net in place if they aren't able to pay their bills on time," Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said on Wednesday Heres a safety net for families. Don't vote Greens. |
04:54pm 10/07/13 Permalink
There is a safety net for keeping your electricity on: it's called pay your f*****g bill.
|
04:59pm 10/07/13 Permalink
My mate with the c***roach ridden, disgusting hell hole.of a housing commission house (I think he is due for his first annual inspection soon, wonder how that goes) owes a couple of grand on his bill, he just has to pay the agreed amount ($35) a week and they won't disconnect him. That was two bills worth backed up before he started the plan, I think that's a huge margin.
|
05:20pm 10/07/13 Permalink
Sarah Hanson-Young is hawt but damn she is as dumb as a box of hammers.
They want 100% green electricity but they want it to be affordable and a safety net for those that casn't afford it? |
05:55pm 10/07/13 Permalink
haha.
That video reminded instantly of one of these characters, and we all know how creepy Bevis is... http://collider.com/wp-content/uploads/beavis_butt-head_image_washington_monument_01.jpg |
06:43pm 10/07/13 Permalink
Sarah Hanson-Young is hawt but damn she is as dumb as a box of hammers. This is typical of ill-conceived and contradictory Greens policies tbh. |
06:44pm 10/07/13 Permalink
^ why don't you just stop following him on facebook so you don't have to see it? I'm not following him. I can't escape his ego advertising. He's on the TV, hes on facebook ads, he shows up in my newsfeed everytime someone likes one of his ridiculous "OHHHHHH MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, IM JUST SO GOOD MEEEEEEEEEEE" pictures. It's just all about Kevin. "Vote me because i'm KEVIN don't worry about my policies and my f*** up's IM KEVINNNNNN" *whispers "oh and im also in labor" glynd it's his only source of material to attacked labor on as the liberals have no policies they're all about hating and not about fixing. Everyone is well aware of how crap Labor is. Labor isn't campaigning on the Labor brand, they are campaigning on "HIIII IM KEVINNNNN" because most voters are that stupid that they don't remember how crap Kevin was and they are willing to forget how crap Labor is just because it has a new leader. Sarah Hanson-Young is hawt but damn she is as dumb as a box of hammers. She is completely nuts too, just have a look at her. Every press conference she has her head on the side, hair behind just 1 of her ears hysterically bobbing her head and talking with a panicked toned. Your standard greeny. Because he secretly loves Rudd just like everyone else. Plus one time at his school Rudd came and showed him the "labor" Prime Minister John Howard came to visit my school in 2007, Kevvy was too "busy" to come. He was probably too busy furiously masturbating to himself in the mirror. |
06:49pm 10/07/13 Permalink
06:50pm 10/07/13 Permalink
I'm not following him. I can't escape his ego advertising. He's on the TV, hes on facebook ads, he shows up in my newsfeed everytime someone likes one of his ridiculous "OHHHHHH MEEEEEEEEEEEEEE, IM JUST SO GOOD MEEEEEEEEEEE" pictures. I wouldn't be happy with him either if I was a partisan prat and he cost my party a free election. |
06:54pm 10/07/13 Permalink
Honest question: Would things really be different if Turnball was in power? Does the leader of the party have much say?
|
08:17pm 10/07/13 Permalink
I get seriously hard for malcum.
|
08:32pm 10/07/13 Permalink
08:33pm 10/07/13 Permalink
F*** the Coalition did themselves a disservice in ditching Turnball. It was 1 vote. And unlike Kevin he has done his job for his party since then. |
08:36pm 10/07/13 Permalink
That is because the libs are a team. The ALP eats their own.
|
08:54pm 10/07/13 Permalink
Honest question: Would things really be different if Turnball was in power? Does the leader of the party have much say? No it wouldn't. This is what people don't get. Thanks to the media, all voters have an obsession with the leaders so that's why every says "oh abbot this" or "gillard that" instead of "liberals this" "Labor that" It's why Kevvy is bringing Labor ahead in the polls. It's the boganization of politics, where people vote solely on the personality of the leader instead of policy of the party and the party team. Policy is made by the party. If Malcolm was the leader, the boats still would be stopped and the wasteful spending and debt would be taken care of. These aren't "abbots policies" as people like to scream and parrot. |
09:11pm 10/07/13 Permalink
FOOTAGE of Kevin Rudd patting the head of a disabled woman has left a disability advocate ``shaking with rage''.
Comedian Stella Young, who is also a disability campaigner, said the PM's behaviour showed Australians had a long way to go to change patronising and disrespectful attitudes. The clip, part of a story on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) on ABC's 7.30 Report on Tuesday night, showed Mr Rudd posing for a photo with a woman in a wheelchair before patting or ruffling her hair. |
09:25pm 10/07/13 Permalink
See the difference is people have to go digging to find lol factors at Rudd, whilst Tony kindly just seemingly offers it up front. Like that interview where he said nothing, bahah who does that?
|
09:36pm 10/07/13 Permalink
That is because the libs are a team. The ALP eats their own. Infi, you type and all I see is one eyed political dribble. You would do the LNP a service by not trying to support them. |
09:42pm 10/07/13 Permalink
Where did the libs chew up and spit their leaders out in sheer desperation? Where was my statement inaccurate Obes?
|
09:46pm 10/07/13 Permalink
Where did the libs chew up and spit their leaders out in sheer desperation? Where was my statement inaccurate Obes? The national Liberal party had a new leader every year 2007-2009. For years there was speculation and endorsement of Costello to challenge Howard for the top job, and many people criticised him for NOT challenging. Similarly the LNP jumped around a lot with the Borg etc. while in Opposition. The only (only!) reason that the current stability exists is that you've been polling well and |
10:18pm 10/07/13 Permalink
Howard stayed too long and it meant there was no successor to take over.
Costello spat the dummy and left, there was a power vacuum. It was quite normal for the Party to wander around a bit in the wilderness. Labor defeated Australias 2nd longest PM and then stabbed its own PM in the back then went to an election and crawled over the line to win again before stabbing YET ANOTHER PM in the back to where we are now. With nearly all their front bench quitting. in any other Political Party that would have been a disaster but Kevin Rudds ego is so huge and the Media love him so much that he has a chance of winning an Election basically by himself. I still think Abbott will win because the ALP has no Election winning Policies, they all suck or cost too much to fulfil. $20 billion surplus to 60 billion defecit YOU CANT EXPLAIN THAT YOU CANT VOTE FOR THAT |
11:02pm 10/07/13 Permalink
That is because the libs are a team. The ALP eats their own. You dont recall Downer, Hewson and Howard playing musical f*****g chairs? Seriously infi why do you absolutely have to be such a one eyed d*******. Quit saying this stupid s*** because you arent helping yourself or endearing anyone to the libs. |
11:32pm 10/07/13 Permalink
wibbly-wobbly back in time sequence
Go back a little further and have a read about the s***fight in the 70s between Gorton, McMahon and Fraser. Gorton, a sitting Liberal PM, faced poor polls vs. a resurgent Labor Party. He was challenged and sacked by the party, replaced by McMahon following a leadership challenge. In a surprise move, Gorton contested and won the position of Deputy Leader, forcing McMahon to make him Defence Minister. This farcical situation ended within five months when McMahon sacked him for disloyalty. Later after the Whitlam dismissal when Fraser won Government, ex-Liberal PM Gorton hated him so much he resigned from the Party and sat in Federal Parliament as an Independent. Similarly later, while Howard was in Government, Fraser was scathingly critical of the Liberal Government. Both modern periods of Opposition have been a bloodbath. The governing Liberal Party of Victoria is a complete clusterf***. So much for unity? What sets Howard's term in Government and ABbott's period as Opposition leader apart is the polls. Howard is and was popular, Abbott is personally unpopular but the 2PP has been solid enough to keep his job, if the libs had 12 months instead of 6 they would f*** him off as readily as they ever have. Any other analysis is 100% partisan bulls***. |
12:15am 11/07/13 Permalink
Honest question: Would things really be different if Turnball was in power? Does the leader of the party have much say? It would represent whether the party was hostage to nutty conspiracy theorists like infi, door, and faceman. In Turnbull's own words: Second, as we are being blunt, the fact is that Tony and the people who put him in his job do not want to do anything about climate change. They do not believe in human caused global warming. As Tony observed on one occasion "climate change is crap" or if you consider his mentor, Senator Minchin, the world is not warming, its cooling and the climate change issue is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to deindustrialise the world. |
12:27am 11/07/13 Permalink
FOOTAGE of Kevin Rudd patting the head of a disabled woman has left a disability advocate ``shaking with rage''. Comedian Stella Young, who is also a disability campaigner, said the PM's behaviour showed Australians had a long way to go to change patronising and disrespectful attitudes.The clip, part of a story on the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) on ABC's 7.30 Report on Tuesday night, showed Mr Rudd posing for a photo with a woman in a wheelchair before patting or ruffling her hair. It's all about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!KEVINNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he has no problem treating disabled people as show ponies and props to fuel the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!KEVINNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ego meter. |
12:32am 11/07/13 Permalink
You dont recall Downer, Hewson and Howard playing musical f*****g chairs? You honestly think that compares? The ALP has dethroned not one but two PRIME MINISTERS. Oppositions regularly chop and change leaders. Since 2004 it's been Latham, Beazley, Crean, Beazley, Rudd, Gillard, Rudd. It amuses me that punters can actually believe a) Rudd wants the Top Job back to help the ALP. Kevin is in it for Kevin. This is simply Kevin's ultimate fantasy of getting the caucus to admit they f***ed up. b) that if Kevin was to win he will be there 6 months after he is elected. The guy is a seatwarmer despised by most of the ALP. Kevin wasn't removed because he was past his used by date like Costello was urged to do. Rudd was removed because his colleagues realised after 2 years of him at the helm, that Rudd is a c***. |
12:37am 11/07/13 Permalink
You honestly think that compares? The ALP has dethroned not one but two PRIME MINISTERS. Oppositions regularly chop and change leaders. Your criticism wasn't of changing sitting prime ministers, it was of infighting in the team and changing leaders. Nice moving of the goalposts there when reality gets in the way of your rhetoric. Can you admit that "The libs are a team. The ALP eats their own" was flat out untrue? |
12:41am 11/07/13 Permalink
Can you admit that "The libs are a team. The ALP eats their own" was flat out untrue? It's 100% true. The Coalition have stayed focused on policy and being ready for government. The ALP as per usual have their eyes on the Newspolls and the opinions of their faceless bosses, throwing out leaders without an afterthought. The solution to poor media or polling in the ALP is get rid of the leader. This is the key element of their toxic culture. Look at the ALP over the last 15 years. Previous periods of government can't compare to how short-sighted and poll driven the ALP have become. if you can't see that then... well good luck to you. edit: name a situation where numerous senior cabinet ministers in the Coalition have outright bagged the leader in the media. name a situation where numerous senior cabinet ministers have resigned after a change in leader in the Coalition. These guys hate kevin's guts. How is this a functional government? They are just trying to save their necks from annihilation, they don't care about governing for the country. |
12:51am 11/07/13 Permalink
he does have a good point though, one eyed as it may be
|
01:07am 11/07/13 Permalink
Hahaha f*****g infi, and what policy is that they are so unified behind and focused on? You keep gking on about policy but when push comes to shove and you get called out to show some policy the guys here point out the total lack of anything meaningfull in that policy.
Youre the kind of guy that makes limp wristed swing voters look like intelligent thoughtfull people. Better to have your eyes and ears open with a small amount of intelligence than to be completely blinded by a football fan mentality. F*** me the libs are worse than Manly fans i swear |
01:18am 11/07/13 Permalink
If you consider ignoring history to be a good point?
Coalition Prime Ministers, World War II and beyond: - Menzies I: His first term was marred by disloyalty and crisis within the ironically named United Australia Party. Forced to resign as PM on 27th August 1941. Just, you know, while we are having a world war. End of the UAP, reforms as Liberal Party later. So, about that stability and unity thing. I contend that this is poll-driven, nothing more than simple desire to stay in office and Government. Menzies was popular and retired before this changed. Howard was popular but chose to go to the 2007 election, and nobody was strong enough to challenge despite waning polls and he lost spectacularly. The other PMs with lesser popularity were embroiled in leadership shenanigans. If the Liberal Party wants to make it their thing that you can't sack a Prime Minister then they should change their party's constitution because they can and they have. If the polls run strongly against a Liberal PM and there is a well-liked challenger ready I firmly believe they will again. |
01:44am 11/07/13 Permalink
It's 100% true. So what about the infighting and leadership spills between Brendan Nelson, then Turnbull, then Abbott? Just in the last few years? Oh wait, you don't care about "facts", because rhetorical fantasy lands are the only places that your arguments make sense in. The Coalition have stayed focused on policy and being ready for government. The ALP as per usual have their eyes on the Newspolls and the opinions of their faceless bosses, throwing out leaders without an afterthought. I think that you have the parties the wrong way around there. We're all still waiting on the Coalition's policies, instead we get Abbott's crowd playing distractions. edit: name a situation where numerous senior cabinet ministers in the Coalition have outright bagged the leader in the media. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spill,_2009#Abbott_and_Hockey_challenges http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/abbotts-climate-change-policy-is-bulls***-20091207-kdmb.html |
02:15am 11/07/13 Permalink
Let's not forget that Abott is leader of the party by one single caucus vote.
Which means that nearly half the caucus do not want him to be PM. |
02:21am 11/07/13 Permalink
Newmann is doing a pretty good job to keep libs out of federal.
As of yesterday ALL unions are banned at all government workplaces unless specially invited. Staff are also no longer allowed to access or seek the unions during working hours.. Statewide across Queensland. Way to go backwards. While state libs are still free reigning with labor in parliament I can only imagine the consequences of a fully backed federal government. |
05:51am 11/07/13 Permalink
I heard someone else say that a week or so ago for Unions Mephz, but they couuldn't provide any link/letter saying it. Can you?
They also said that Unions are no longer allowed to use Government resources to print their own propaganda. Which, IMO, they shouldn't have been allowed to do in the first place! |
07:24am 11/07/13 Permalink
I heard someone else say that a week or so ago for Unions Mephz, but they couuldn't provide any link/letter saying it. Can you? They also said that Unions are no longer allowed to use Government resources to print their own propaganda. Which, IMO, they shouldn't have been allowed to do in the first place! why not, it isn't really much different than say the LNP letting businesses and people conducting meetings and using government resources to do their businesses also, dont the unions use labours resources? (when in power or not) and the unions fund labour so it is more a quid pro quo |
07:31am 11/07/13 Permalink
It's all about !!!!!!!!!!!!!!KEVINNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he has no problem treating disabled people as show ponies and props to fuel the !!!!!!!!!!!!!!KEVINNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ego meter. Does anyone else imagine him frothing at the mouth with wild crazy eyes while typing this? Its stupid anyway, saw this footage this morning, he just ruffles her hair, like you would any kid, and the girl looks thrilled about it, probably made her day. |
08:50am 11/07/13 Permalink
Let's not forget that Abott is leader of the party by one single caucus vote. Not that I like the man but this is not true. He opened up party leadership voting after the election and won by far more than 1 vote. |
08:53am 11/07/13 Permalink
Not that I like the man but this is not true. He opened up party leadership voting after the election and won by far more than 1 vote. omg they didn't knife him! |
08:54am 11/07/13 Permalink
omg they didn't knife him! Maybe they should have... |
09:33am 11/07/13 Permalink
Does anyone else imagine him frothing at the mouth with wild crazy eyes while typing this? Yep. Maybe masturbating as well. This level of attention paid to a self confessed media whore goes beyond exasperation with the current political environment. @possumobesity. Dude take it easy, we all know kevin loves the limelight, just turn the tv off if its bugging you that much. |
09:45am 11/07/13 Permalink
omg they didn't knife him! couple more bad polls and lets see what happens eh? |
10:24am 11/07/13 Permalink
Not that I like the man but this is not true. He opened up party leadership voting after the election and won by far more than 1 vote. I stand corrected, if only because I have completely forgotten the last election even happened. Considering the current situation (Rudd back, leading polls), I see that as a forgivable oversight. Meanwhile, this thread needs more "they're both s***" people. Sick of Ruddbunnies and Abbottbackers. :D |
10:51am 11/07/13 Permalink
Scooter, its legislation now. Should be able to find it.
|
11:01am 11/07/13 Permalink
I think it will be hilarious if Kevin Rudd gets in.
after all these changes to the way Labor elect their leader, the Labor party will be stuck with him and Australians will again get the leader they deserve. |
11:20am 11/07/13 Permalink
Does anyone else imagine him frothing at the mouth with wild crazy eyes while typing this?I'm also hearing a distinct nasally whine in my head whenever I read his posts. |
11:20am 11/07/13 Permalink
The Messiah attempts to heal the sick
|
12:50pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Does anyone else imagine him frothing at the mouth with wild crazy eyes while typing this?Its stupid anyway, saw this footage this morning, he just ruffles her hair, like you would any kid, and the girl looks thrilled about it, probably made her day. She's not a kid though, she's an adult...... herp derppppppppppp @possumobesity.Dude take it easy, we all know kevin loves the limelight, just turn the tv off if its bugging you that much. I guess i am a bit over the top. I guess the thing that bugs me and sets me off the most is the fact that he is going to win the election just because of his celebrity and that aussie voters are so stupid that they will re elect Labor just for Kevin. |
01:36pm 11/07/13 Permalink
I guess i am a bit over the top. I guess the thing that bugs me and sets me off the most is the fact that he is going to win the election just because of his celebrity and that aussie voters are so stupid that they will re elect Labor just for Kevin. I think you are accusing voters of being stupid because you are afraid they aren't going to vote the way you want them to vote like somehow you are a voice of reason. I don't understand the blind fanaticism of some people to one party or another. Hell, after seeing the hung parliament and how well the indies did for their electorates, I'd be more encouraged than ever to find who an independent is in my electorate and see if their values/ideas correlated with my own and vote that way and hope the current polls reflect the election result of another hung parliament. /end wishful thinking |
01:47pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Jesus christ, he just touched her head. To say that is a gesture of oppression to disabled people sounds a little paranoid. The article by Stella Young is just sad.
I guess i am a bit over the top. I guess the thing that bugs me and sets me off the most is the fact that he is going to win the election just because of his celebrity and that aussie voters are so stupid that they will re elect Labor just for Kevin. Most LNP supporters seem misguided on this point, they think we're voting for Kevin, when we're actually voting against Tony. Get rid of that chump already, he's killing your party's chances. |
01:48pm 11/07/13 Permalink
The thing that boggles my mind is everyone was ready to get rid of Gillard and Tony was going to stroll in with an overwhelming majority. Now with Kevin in the mix without any change to policy whatsoever all of a sudden everyone is ready to vote labor.
His only policy change so far is to ensure he doesn't get knifed again. No policy to remove the carbon tax and move to an ETS, no policy to ammend the MRR Tax, no changes to the assylum seeker policy. |
03:01pm 11/07/13 Permalink
But he posted a photo on Instagram...
|
03:37pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Perhaps the polls for Gillard were so bad simply because the Australian voters held a big grudge against her for the way she got into the PM position..
|
03:41pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Perhaps the polls for Gillard were so bad simply because the Australian voters held a big grudge against her for the way she got into the PM position.. I think this is a massive part of it. |
03:54pm 11/07/13 Permalink
I think you are accusing voters of being stupid because you are afraid they aren't going to vote the way you want them to vote like somehow you are a voice of reason. No. I'v explained this once before. Aussie voters are politically stupid and it's partially the medias fault. The media have created this big obsession with the leaders of parties so discussions are always "abbot this" "gillard that" "rudd this" "abbots policies" instead of "Liberals this" "Labor that" "Liberals policies. So people basically vote based on the leader now instead of the party and the team in that party and people don't actually know it's the party that comes up with the policies not the leader. It's why Labor keeps ousting its leaders because they know stupid aussie voters only look at the Leader these days. It always makes me cringe when i see someone write "i'm not voting for abbot because abbots an idiot" You are voting for a party and the team behind it. Voters are that stupid that they will re-elect Labor and the crap Labor team despite all the problems and mistakes they have caused all because it has a leader they like. Labor understand that Aussie voters are politically stupid, it's why they are now campaigning based soley on Kevin Rudd, it's why their facebook page is now called "Kevin Rudd AND Labor" They know if they don't campaign on Labor they can win on "Kevin Rudd" They may aswell rename the party "Kevin Rudd" Labor will win this next election based solely on the celebrity and we will have another 4 years of bad Labor government, mismanagement and f*** ups. Most LNP supporters seem misguided on this point, they think we're voting for Kevin, when we're actually voting against Tony. Get rid of that chump already, he's killing your party's chances. PERFECT example of what im talking about above. You are voting for a party just because you don't like 1 person and like another despite it being the PARTY you should be voting for. Dislike Abbot as much as you want, but the party and the team behind it and their policies are fantastic. The policy is set by the party. Your post is a perfect example of the boganization of politics that has occurred. I don't understand the blind fanaticism of some people to one party or another. Hell, after seeing the hung parliament and how well the indies did for their electorates, I'd be more encouraged than ever to find who an independent is in my electorate and see if their values/ideas correlated with my own and vote that way and hope the current polls reflect the election result of another hung parliament. What about the blind fanaticism for the Labor party on here despite how s*** they have done in government, just because people don't like "Abbot" The independents have done a crap job for their electorates, they went completely against the wishes of the people in their electorates by backing the gillard government. Everyone knew gillard was lying about the carbon tax and they were warned, yet they still went ahead in backing her. |
03:55pm 11/07/13 Permalink
But he posted a photo on Instagram... Was it the one where he cut himself shaving yesterday? Take note faceless men: If it bleeds you can kill it! |
03:57pm 11/07/13 Permalink
I saw most of him at the press club today and he announced nothing new.
every question about Policy he dodged or smirked or Mr Abbott'd it. Whats he going to debate Abbott about ? At least Abbott has a leaflet. As for stopping the boats, SBY (as Rudd calls the Indonesian leader - hip talk) is going to have a talkfest with all the ministers in the area, which is likely to amount to nothing. That was all he had to say. oh and hes going to get tough on Power Bills ! |
04:05pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Hope anyone who votes Liberal doesn't like or need any healthcare/police/fire assistance in the nearby future.
It's all disappearing to the s***house if liberal get into Federal parliament. Newman and QLD is merely a taste of what will happen. There's more 'cuts' coming and with legislation to remove unions. The non-government sectors workplace rights are next chumps. But don't say we didn't warn you |
04:15pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Cool, now I get to call you out for being an idiot. They didn't do a crap job for their electorates at all. You should head to the Tamworth area and see the amount of infrastructure that has been built and jobs created including those based around carbon reduction (which the greens and the Indies forced to happen, hence the 'Gillard lie', not your weird way of looking at it) and the NBN. It is exactly why Joyce was still not a shoe in to win the seat with Windsor running. The people there could have easily have voted LNP if they wanted to but had signalled dissatisfaction with both major parties. They voted for someone to negotiate their wants and needs with whomever the government at the time was. Just because the LNP was 2nd (by a long way) in 2PP doesn't automatically tell the Indie who the people want to be granted guarantee of supply for the budget. That was up to the independent and Gillard/Abbott to negotiate. You got a beef with which way that all went down, then take it up with the negotiations from both sides and our political system. Also for the record I don't buy into your rhetoric about labor = bad, libs = good. Labor have made some stupid mistakes including the MRRT, promising a surplus, taking on the states through the media for Gonski etc. But there has been some decent strides made with education reform and disability reform and the NBN. Making it seem like the sky is falling down so vote the other way detracts from decent policy debate imo. I saw most of him at the press club today and he announced nothing new. Last time I checked, he called for a debate with Abbott and booked the press club for it as a way of wedging him into either get a debate or Abbott shirking it and Rudd trying to force the Abbott = Dr No rhetoric down everyone's throat. Make of it what you will, but it was never meant to be a policy launch, don't know why you expected it to be? |
04:18pm 11/07/13 Permalink
She's not a kid though, she's an adult...... herp derpppppppppppThis is what is wrong with you. |
04:19pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Dislike Abbot as much as you want, but the party and the team behind it and their policies are fantastic.Stop the boats! lol When people accuse you of frothing you just start frothing harder. It's good entertainment. So what did Labor do to you anyway? Did you expect them to save you from your degenerate little life and when they didn't you decided to focus all your blame and anger at them instead of yourself? You should probably get that checked out buddy. |
04:21pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Azaria if Windsor and Oakshott did so much for their electorates why are they afraid to run again ?
Both those seats will become National not Labor. Certainly not risking another Independent who runs as a conservative only to join the ALP after the Election. Those two clowns have hurt the Independent label. Either you vote Labor or Coalition otherwise you get what we just got. and god help this Country if The Greens get a sniff of power again. |
04:58pm 11/07/13 Permalink
What we just got was one of the most productive federal governments in quite a while.
|
05:27pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Azaria if Windsor and Oakshott did so much for their electorates why are they afraid to run again ? Well I will give you that Oakshott (who I think is fairly well measured) would lose his seat but Windsor most likely wouldn't have if the polling before he announced retiring showed. Wilkie will probably keep his seat again, as will Katter. Windsor is leaving due to Ill health, Oakshott is leaving for his kids apparently but I would say that he is the only one out of the entire crossbench who started the term there that would no longer be there. Last time I checked they ran in the last election as independents, not as a National Party stooges who had to give them supply 'just because'. And what did we just get that is so so so bad? If anything we just maintained the status quo whilst moving towards a few reforms apart from a carbon tax anc getting changes to legislation through that for the most part has been positive. The 'boat issue' was caused from a mandate from a previous election, so doesn't count. So you hate Labor and think people should only vote 1 of the two main parties? Awesome democracy in action right there. |
05:33pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Hope anyone who votes Liberal doesn't like or need any healthcare/police/fire assistance in the nearby future.It's all disappearing to the s***house if liberal get into Federal parliament. Wow, could you have said anything more ridiculous than that. Suggesting healthcare/police/fire assistance would disappear under a Liberal government is the most retarded thing i have ever read on this forum. Congratulations. Also for the record I don't buy into your rhetoric about labor = bad, libs = good. Don't buy into it, but look at Labors track record not only federally but in state. Queensland Labor 10 years in government - Massive debt, Deficit, wasteful spending, constant mistakes NSW Labor 10 years in government - Massive debt, Deficit, wasteful spending, constant mistakes, corruption Victoria Labor 10 years in government - Massive debt, Deficit, wasteful spending, constant mistakes, major blow outs on projects Tasmania is a basket case too. Whenever Labor gets into power, debt, deficit, wasteful spending and incompetence follows.The problem is Labor and their ideology and policies. It's not an isolated event. The only decent Labor government was Bob Hawke's |
05:55pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Windsor was going to lose his seat. He was up against Barnaby Joyce.
Who I admit is a bit of a nutcase much like Bob Katter but he is a popular nutcase because of his passion he shares for his electorate. |
05:59pm 11/07/13 Permalink
I'm voting for Labor at the moment because I have a strongly belief that the NBN is important and that the Liberal version is very crap.
Since Liberal has no other real policy they care to tell me about, I don't see why I should vote for them. Perhaps if Tony spent more time talking about their policies rather than demanding elections and other random stuff I might have something to think about. I also expect him and his party to be able to get their policy information out there in the general media so I can find it easily. I want people debating the policies in detail, not about how awesome Kruddler is as a media whore. Abbot and his party should surely realise by now that trying to beat KRudd at the Media spectacle game will lead to failure, it is one of his strongest skills it seems. Abbot has piss poor media spinning ability, so they need to change their strategy ASAP, what was 'working' for the last 2 years doesn't work any more, if they can't adapt to that how can I be convinced they can adapt to the changing world if they won government? |
06:12pm 11/07/13 Permalink
If NBN is the dominant issue for you then what in the world could possibly change your mind? You don't sound like a swinging voter. Parties only appeal to swinging voters.
|
06:15pm 11/07/13 Permalink
infi, it is certainly an issue I care about. I would certainly balance it against other heavy weight policies. I've voted for both sides (plus other sides) during my voting time.
|
06:20pm 11/07/13 Permalink
The NBN is going to be decades away from completion.
If you want a fast connection why shouldnt You pay for it ? For me The NBN is about Cost vs Benefit vs time and the cost is extremely expensive and a long time to wait for completion. I can understand Turnbulls view on this, he did a good job of explaining it on Q&A Monday night. Even if the Coalition goes ahead with their plan (and they might not) it doesn't mean a decision couldnt be made in the future for Node to Home to be financed by other means or a composite of public/private. maybe the Coalition and Labor will belt out a more realistic NBN Plan. Such a big project should have a bipartisan understanding. the most retarded thing i have ever read on this forum. Citation Required |
07:03pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Holden oz hostage - $$$ to stem a flood of bogan tears
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/07/holden-us-hostage/ |
07:05pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Wow, could you have said anything more ridiculous than that. Suggesting healthcare/police/fire assistance would disappear under a Liberal government is the most retarded thing i have ever read on this forum.And you work in what? Something far from any of those services to even see first hand what Newman's string pulling has been doing huh. You know 25+ hour shifts are becoming a normal regular occurrence right? I suppose you don't mind if the emergency services people who look after you and make decisions on your life or your families on under such conditions, mmmm? Furthermore, I was quite clearly referring to as we know it. Fact is its beginning to circle the toilet as is. You're an idiot if you think I said it was going to disappear completely. And you're a bigger idiot if you think it's going to be better off under Liberal. |
07:34pm 11/07/13 Permalink
Perhaps the polls for Gillard were so bad simply because the Australian voters held a big grudge against her for the way she got into the PM position.. Yeah this was kind of what stuck in my mind a bit. Ill freely admit i dont know all the details as to why she did it and had enough backing to get it done. Lets facr facts though, in australia if you appear to knife a coworker or friend you are seen as a dog c*** and thats a stigma thats incredibly hard to shake off and so it should be imho. Ill give gillard some credit though, she as s*** didnt mind a fight and i found her ability to stand toe to toe with anyone firing questions at her alot more.impressive than that catatonic idiot abbotts. I see rudd as being able to at least stand his ground and have something to say far better than abbotts bobble head impression also. |
09:52pm 11/07/13 Permalink
http://auspol.wikia.com/wiki/The_Tony_Abbott_Files
As Paul keating said, god help us if he becomes prime minister. and i dont even believe in god. |
12:08am 12/07/13 Permalink
Paul Keating would have thought the same thing about John Howard, the best Prime Minister of our time. In fact, Paul Keating would probably say that about anyone who is not him.
|
12:12am 12/07/13 Permalink
New candidate to replace Julia Gillard in her seat.
- Joined the Labor party under 1 month ago - Has never been to Melbourne - Has never been to her electrorate or lived in her electrorate - Says she has a connection to the area because her partner use to live in Werribee This is classic Labor ladies and gentlemen. |
12:31am 12/07/13 Permalink
John Howard, the best Prime Minister of our time. The same John howard that rode the wave of the mining boom, pre GFC? The same one who implemented the GST, wasted more money than any recent labor government. And proposed the ridiculous work choices. Sold off more assets than any Labor government, to get some quick cash in the coffers. It's thanks to recent Labor spending that has had us avoid recession post GFC. So many great policies since Howard, there was no way we'd get an NBN under a Liberal government. Read that Auspol wiki and get back to me. |
12:56am 12/07/13 Permalink
Some would say Howard encouraged the mining boom with the introduciton of free trade agreements with China in particular as well as other incentives.
The GST in hindsight was a good thing as it catches people that used to dodges other forms of tax. $96 billion of debt inherited by the Howard Government was from the prvious Labor Party in 1996 when he came into power. When the Labor government came to office in 2007, there was no debt at all. Rather, government net debt was minus $45 billion, which was nearly 4 per cent of GDP. I personally don't know anyone that was worse off by work choices so please explain your personal experience's or are you simply regurgitating union bs? Over the period Howard was in government they sold $72b in assets. Which they never would of had to if they didn't inherrit $96b in debt. And now Australia has gone from 4 per cent of GDP in the black to 10 per cent in the red in the space of four years under Labor rule. Now that is a record by historical standards.(here is where you blame the GFC) |
01:47am 12/07/13 Permalink
It always makes me cringe when i see someone write "i'm not voting for abbot because abbots an idiot" You are voting for a party and the team behind it. While the coalition puts Abbott as their leader before Turnbull, they make it clear where they stand on climate change and social progressiveness, so in the Lib's case the choice of representative communicates a great deal. The NBN is going to be decades away from completion. Users pay for the cost of their NBN connection under both the Labor and Coalition plans, through user fees over time. |
03:31am 12/07/13 Permalink
all you need know about john howard (ie hes a failure)
|
07:42am 12/07/13 Permalink
I remember seeing that and god i felt bad for him. Dont get me wrong i hate the guy, but thats some hardcore humiliation.
|
08:58am 12/07/13 Permalink
Speaking of cricket, Kevin Kardashian is at it again:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1005168_10151707616929313_1594456777_n.jpg |
09:19am 12/07/13 Permalink
So he isnt allowed to voice his thoughts on sporting events? Little jack boot Jonny was always spouting on about cricket are the rules different for him?
|
09:23am 12/07/13 Permalink
Who said anything about permission to speak on sports. It was topical.
Sheesh, touchy... |
09:38am 12/07/13 Permalink
By call him that and saying he is at it again you are implying that he is doing something he probably shouldnt. No doubt touching on his aparent love of attention. So no not touchy at all just pointing out that he isnt doing anything anyone else wouldnt do
|
09:51am 12/07/13 Permalink
Commenting on the cricket, what a f*****g a-hole. Get a grip idiots.
I would like to see more detailed policy from both sides and an election date soon. These things need to be put on the table and debated. |
10:29am 12/07/13 Permalink
Windsor was going to lose his seat. He was up against Barnaby Joyce.. No he wasn't, Windsor would've smashed Barnaby in his home electorate and had the polls to prove it. |
10:31am 12/07/13 Permalink
No he wasn't, Windsor would've smashed Barnaby in his home electorate and had the polls to prove it. Earlier polls might have suggested that but the ones released only days before he announced he wouldn't contest showed he was going to lose or at least it was going to be tight. |
11:21am 12/07/13 Permalink
Which polls are those?
I can only find one by a conservative media group called Australian Spectator that has a 30% swing in favour of Joyce taking place in less than a month. bleh, it doesnt really matter I guess, guy stepped down. |
11:28am 12/07/13 Permalink
Yeah I saw that one but I didn't post it because it was only 100 people and seemed too 1 sided.
There was an abc poll that had them neck and neck but I can't find the link. |
01:23pm 12/07/13 Permalink
Everyone's noticing !!!!!!!!!!!!!KEVINNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!'s ego getting out of control once again.
http://mobile.news.com.au/opinion/rudd-just-can8217t-help-himself-when-it-comes-to-adoration/story-fnh4jt54-1226678320371 |
02:16pm 12/07/13 Permalink
If NBN is the dominant issue for you then what in the world could possibly change your mind? You don't sound like a swinging voter. Parties only appeal to swinging voters. I Googled "swinging parties" and ended up in this thread. DOH! |
03:24pm 12/07/13 Permalink
Interesting read, no one comes out of it looking good.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/12/ashbygate-peter-slipper-james-ashby |
04:51pm 12/07/13 Permalink
I Googled "swinging parties" and ended up in this thread. DOH!http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/clapping.gif |
05:15pm 12/07/13 Permalink
I'm a swinger and would like a list of policies from the parties, when/where will this be found?
|
05:35pm 12/07/13 Permalink
Dota 2 is a steal at the moment, 100%. They should totally add that to the sale ;)
|
05:39pm 12/07/13 Permalink
This guy keeps on giving out that creep:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/q71/1005590_601273949893713_1153517166_n.jpg |
08:55pm 12/07/13 Permalink
What the hell... it looks like he stole that kid's little cup of tea.
|
09:05pm 12/07/13 Permalink
He looks badass: "don't f*** with me Rudd - I drink kid's tea and I don't give a f***. I'm off the rails c***."
|
09:16pm 12/07/13 Permalink
09:18pm 12/07/13 Permalink
I thought his eyes were more
http://desktop.freewallpaper4.me/view/original/6844/ghostbusters-vigo.jpg |
09:20pm 12/07/13 Permalink
He looks badass: "don't f*** with me Rudd - I drink kid's tea and I don't give a f***. I'm off the rails c***."whoa, cringeworthy. |
09:52am 13/07/13 Permalink
fpot's humour nerve was severed in the "door incident".
|
11:15am 13/07/13 Permalink
Sadly the LNP "NBN" policy is far more backwards then a shopping centre train ride and that is what we are about to get and infi approves.
|
09:31pm 13/07/13 Permalink
Sadly the LNP "NBN" policy is far more backwards then a shopping centre train ride and that is what we are about to get and infi approves. Yeh, but to be honest its not the end of the world as far as I can tell. For a few k on top I can get fibre to my house if I miss out on taxpayer-funded fibre. We all know the future is 100meg+ fibre, the Libs are just tightarses. That said, the NBN is rolling out now at random locations, and its utterly and completely unfair that I will have to pay for the last few hundred metres myself. If I have to pay and it and other people get it for 'free' (aka I f*****g well paid for it) I'll go anti-Liberal for about a decade purely out of spite. IMO its too late to take my taxes and then not give me the f*****g fibre. |
11:29pm 13/07/13 Permalink
So that vid just rehashed the same arguments that were made when the LNP announced their alternative broadband policy. There's no new arguments, pretty much the left equivalent of Bolt level retard. How the this stuff gets federal funding boggles the mind.
Since Rudd got back in we've been hearing nothing truly significant about the LNP. Are they holding back their campaign spend until he announces a date, or do they just have no funds? |
12:06am 14/07/13 Permalink
You make it sound the Coalition plan is to actually uninstall the Internet. Get a grip...
|
12:35am 14/07/13 Permalink
Yeh, but to be honest its not the end of the world as far as I can tell. For a few k on top I can get fibre to my house if I miss out on taxpayer-funded fibre. It's not taxpayer funded, it's subscriber fee funded. Either way you're paying for it, but under the labor proposal it seems that you have a better chance of getting a better deal (due to the discounted price the whole street being done at once while the workers are already there digging past the houses, more people being likely to take it up when it's an already-available option spreading the cost out even more - as has been seen in the suburbs connected so far which have had better fast-tier subscriptions rates than expected - and not having to pay the upkeep of the FTTN boxes airconditioned year round at the end of your street through user fees). |
06:36am 14/07/13 Permalink
not with wireless in its current form, no.
|
08:09am 14/07/13 Permalink
Not only is the Liberal NBN plan crap there has been no mention of how either plan affects latency. It seems logical that lib's plan will have higher latency due to their design. Latency is something that a consumer experiences every time they use a network connection. For 'next-gen' technologies to truly take off, cloud computing, video conferencing, doctor-patient consultations, off-shore diagnosis, all this sort of stuff is highly effected by latency. I'd rather not risk lib's plan of not only having a crippled national broadband network, but having a network who's latency may even be no better or worse than today's current network. I wont risk that without something pretty sweet to balance the sheets from Liberal, NOTHING of which they have brought up... Stopping the boats isn't really a big priority for me.
|
08:16am 14/07/13 Permalink
I tried googling up on FTTN latency impact when the Coalition announced their plan, but couldn't find anything. In my opinion latency is in the same tier of importance as speed, due to how much it affects general usage.
There was little information that I could find, but it seemed like it might lie somewhere between fibre and copper, I vaguely recall that it might have been something like 20 ms with an FTTN box transforming the signal, and about 2ms with a straight up fibre connection. |
08:35am 14/07/13 Permalink
Anyone else see that the Greens have announced their election policies today? Absolute comedy gold, hilarious stuff.
- $43 billion in extra expenditure via taxes - 4 new taxes, tax increases Christine Milne was on insiders this morning ranting around companies making profits and how they are going to tax them, also millionaires are going to have half of their wealth taxed. Barry said "You haven't made any budget savings or cuts, are you saying that the budget is perfect and there is no waste?" she then went on to rant about fossil fuels in response. I struggle to understand how people vote for this clearly extremist party. You would either need to be delusional or have some form of mental illness. |
09:46am 14/07/13 Permalink
I struggle to understand how people vote for this clearly extremist party. You would either need to be delusional or have some form of mental illness. The irony coming from Door, the frothing mentally ill champion of these threads. |
09:48am 14/07/13 Permalink
and its utterly and completely unfair that I will have to pay for the last few hundred metres myself I feel your pain oh wait, no I don't - rofles |
09:52am 14/07/13 Permalink
.I struggle to understand how people vote for this clearly extremist party. You would either need to be delusional or have some form of mental illness.I struggle to see how people can vote for a delusional and backwards party like Liberal. |
10:39am 14/07/13 Permalink
Not only is the Liberal NBN plan crap there has been no mention of how either plan affects latency. I agree Toll, but I reckon it'd be lost cause educating the average Joe on what latency is in the limited bit spots on the 7:30 report. I recently had a head desk moment when a coworker who should well know the difference came to me with a problem caused by latency and had a hard time understanding why increasing bandwidth on our low utilisation link wouldn't make any difference. It's cringeworthy every time MPs get up and imply the only important metric how many "megs" everyone will get, and ignore reliability, latency, and ongoing maintenance cost. |
10:40am 14/07/13 Permalink
On going maintenance costs are another governments problem. :P
|
10:44am 14/07/13 Permalink
There is nobody in the Coalition who thinks their Plan is technically superior to Labors. The NBN is an awesome idea, no doubts about that.
But its the cost. The NBN reminds me a little of that Simpsons episode and how Homer promised everyone that their rubbish and dirty deeds would be cleaned up and whilst it was certainly possible they blew the budget in the first week. (Trash of the Titans) We already have some of the worlds most expensive Electricity, Water charges, is our Broadband going to be the most expensive too ? |
11:16am 14/07/13 Permalink
I feel your painoh wait, no I don't - rofles Yet his fees will be subsidising the other installations already done under the original plan, while not getting that benefit himself, and if somebody moves, they'd have to pay again and again under this plan, for no apparent benefit except so that the Coalition can say "Not the NBN" after News Corp has been raging on about it every day for years. But its the cost. You are aware that NBN Corp's prices for currently available speeds are locked in right? It won't cost you any more than it currently does for the same speed, for a much better connection quality, with optional upgradability, because it's the big spenders who are happy to spend more for faster speeds who subsidise the utility company, and they've proven to be an even greater share of the market than the business plan estimated, so faster speeds can probably also be cheaper. |
11:18am 14/07/13 Permalink
Anyone else see that the Greens have announced their election policies today? Absolute comedy gold, hilarious stuff.- $43 billion in extra expenditure via taxes- 4 new taxes, tax increasesChristine Milne was on insiders this morning ranting around companies making profits and how they are going to tax them, also millionaires are going to have half of their wealth taxed. Barry said "You haven't made any budget savings or cuts, are you saying that the budget is perfect and there is no waste?" she then went on to rant about fossil fuels in response.I struggle to understand how people vote for this clearly extremist party. You would either need to be delusional or have some form of mental illness. Taxing the banks (which basically have public insurance), fixing the mining tax and a 5% increase in tax for millionares, f*** man sounds pretty extreme. It is better choice than reducing the tax free threshold for people earning under 80K. |
11:25am 14/07/13 Permalink
any chance wireless will tear the nbn a new areshole in say 5 years when 5-6g is the norm? I live in a capital city, can't get 4G, and 3G is sketchy and drops out. So I'd say no. |
11:45am 14/07/13 Permalink
We can build a better economy by increasing taxes? S*** I never knew it was that easy, let's just go all the way then.
|
11:46am 14/07/13 Permalink
Latency on 3g/4g is a problem. I remember when the gunman was in the Queen Street Mall and all of a sudden just about all Data stops working in the CBD.
|
11:48am 14/07/13 Permalink
What happened to The Greens ?
It used to be about saving Trees and Whales. Now its Robin Hood Tax policies and destroying job creating Industries. The Milne womans voice really annoys me. |
11:59am 14/07/13 Permalink
Taxing the banks (which basically have public insurance), fixing the mining tax and a 5% increase in tax for millionares, f*** man sounds pretty extreme.It is better choice than reducing the tax free threshold for people earning under 80K. Here let me fix your post for you. "fixing the mining tax" - Increasing the tax and ramping it up "5% increase in tax for millionaires" - Yep, to 50% of their income. Not to mention increasing the carbon tax and a levy on bank profits. So basically they will pay tax and then their profit after tax will be taxed again. Yay for Greens logic. The Greens are socialists and don't care about the economy or how well business do. What happened to The Greens ? The socialists and communists took over. Now they use environmentalism as a disguise. |
01:20pm 14/07/13 Permalink
I'm trying to work out whether you know what socialism actually means and whether anything in Greens policy is socialist policy?
"5% increase in tax for millionaires" - Yep, to 50% of their income. This indicates to me that you don't pay much in the way of tax yourself because you don't seem to understand how a progressive tax system works. Notwithstanding the huge variety of tax offsets available that if anyone who earns >1 mil per year is actually paying anywhere near 50% tax then they should get new accountants. |
01:50pm 14/07/13 Permalink
don't let reality get in the way of a good rant Fireman Sam
|
01:59pm 14/07/13 Permalink
We already have some of the worlds most expensive Electricity, Water charges, is our Broadband going to be the most expensive too ? Probably, our land mass to population ratio is pretty infrastructure intensive. So if we are going to be paying big money either way, I'd rather pay that extra bit for a significantly better system. |
02:06pm 14/07/13 Permalink
I like how Door/Faceman never ever answer the criticisms of their frothing.
|
02:40pm 14/07/13 Permalink
I used to like political threads on QGL till I realised it is pretty much just the same people posting until they reach a critical mass point of wrongness, people desperately trying to show them reason, and then instead of learning from it they'll just froth away on some new tangent. Then when they have reached the critical mass point of wrongness on every single topic that the thread could possibly cover the thread dies, only for a new politics thread to crop up at a later date and for them to be wrong all over again about the exact same topics covered in the previous thread and for the process to literally repeat itself. I mean, when you have to change your name repeatedly and re-reg accounts to try and give yourself a fresh start on an internet forum you've got to be doing a lot of things wrong.
So now I just read and chuckle at the drivel posted by the usual suspects. It's better then wasting your time trying to respond to it. |
03:05pm 14/07/13 Permalink
I'm trying to work out whether you know what socialism actually means and whether anything in Greens policy is socialist policy? 1 of the main principles of Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. It's why the Greens love tax. It's why their newly announced increase to the newstart allowance is going to be funded by their new taxes and tax increases along with the 43 billion dollars in extra expenditure that they have announced. They are also anti-business and especially anti-private business as their new policies today have shown. I like how Door/Faceman never ever answer the criticisms of their frothing. I responded to Firemans post, if you are referring to your post, i can't be bothered as all you write is "OMGGG DOOOR" despite me not being this Door character and you have nothing to contribute to the debate/discussion. |
03:50pm 14/07/13 Permalink
1 of the main principles of Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. It's why the Greens love tax. It's why their newly announced increase to the newstart allowance is going to be funded by their new taxes and tax increases along with the 43 billion dollars in extra expenditure that they have announced. They are also anti-business and especially anti-private business as their new policies today have shown. No. Socialism involves creating and entirely different economic and legal structure. There is nothing socialist about changing tax rates and any suggestion otherwise just makes you look like an idiot. This absolutist and infallible position you take of the LNP, and by de facto every other party being entirely bad, is absurd. All parties and people have good and bad points. Positions you agree with and positions you don't. When you stop listening to those alternative positions, you're just asking to be taken advantage of. A democratic parliament should be a bustling debate of informed differing ideas, not a proxy vote for the very few in power at the top. |
04:28pm 14/07/13 Permalink
Wrong Fireman Sam, where tax rates rise to a punitive level there is no longer an economic incentive to create more production. At this point the economy stagnates - a perfect opportunity for the government to buy assets or nationalise them.
The term "socialist" used in popular political debate refers to policies requiring people to pay for the lifestyle and benefits of other through the forced redistribution of their wealth. From each according to their ability to each according to their needs.... Sound familiar? |
05:05pm 14/07/13 Permalink
The term socialism for non hysterical right wing ningbuts means things like socialised schooling, roads, police, research, etc, because these things don't make sense to be privatised nor would work in a decent way if we tried, yet are critical foundations of all of the successful nations on earth.
|
05:17pm 14/07/13 Permalink
No. There is nothing socialist about changing tax rates and any suggestion otherwise just makes you look like an idiot. I'm not saying it's "socialist" to change tax rates. Socialists know the best way to redistribute wealth is through massive tax increases and numerous new taxes used to fund big new welfare programs. If you look at any socialist party or government in any western capitalist nation in the world, the main hallmark of their principles is the redistribution of wealth. Socialism involves creating and entirely different economic and legal structure Yes, i know. I don't know why you are trying to deny that the Greens are a Socialist party. They openly subscribe to Democratic Socialism along with the Labor party and Democratic Socialism is all about transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism. Some quotes from wikipedia for you. Democratic socialism is a variant of socialism that rejects centralized, elitist, or authoritarian methods of transitioning from capitalism to socialism in favor of grassroots-level movements aiming for the immediate creation of decentralized economic democracy. The term is often used by socialists who favor either electoral transition to socialism or a spontaneous mass revolution from below to distinguish themselves from authoritarian socialists that call for a single-party state, most notably to contrast with Stalinists and Maoists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism The term socialism for non hysterical right wing ningbuts means things like socialised schooling, roads, police, research, etc, because these things don't make sense to be privatised nor would work in a decent way if we tried, yet are critical foundations of all of the successful nations on earth. Once again, Nerf flies in with insults and adds nothing of substance to add to the debate/discussion. Why bother defending the Greens? They are openly a Socialist party and openly campaign on their Socialist agenda. They LOVE speaking about "Social Justice" which is their soft term for redisitrubtion of wealth |
06:05pm 14/07/13 Permalink
That's taking the argument to it's extremities though infi. No one is advocating taxation rates that result in individuals having similar take home incomes no matter their initial earnings. It's just pure paranoia and fear mongering to suggest that anyone of substance is even thinking that.
Please enlighten me on the wonderful and extravagant lifestyles of those on welfare that is being paid for by those poor hard done by multimillionares who lead such difficult lives. Please explain to me how the work they've put into making those millions hasn't made their lives better because they know that some of their income is going to another help another person live below the poverty line. Yes, i know. I don't know why you are trying to deny that the Greens are a Socialist party. They openly subscribe to Democratic Socialism along with the Labor party and Democratic Socialism is all about transitioning from Capitalism to Socialism. Some evidence of this would be nice. "Openly subscribe" says that there should be much about in writing to this, either that or your just speaking out of your arse. I'm a member of the Greens and I don't think I personally know anyone that is a socialist let alone it being a party platform. Chances are my income is way above yours as a fair chunk of it is drawn from 15 years of share market investment. I certainly don't want to change from capitalism to socialism. I've benefited far too much from capitalism. I wouldn't be a member of the party if I thought that was the position. |
06:21pm 14/07/13 Permalink
Some evidence of this would be nice. "Openly subscribe" says that there should be much about in writing to this, either that or your just speaking out of your arse. I don't know about the Greens, but the ALP's status as a democractic socialist party is a fact. Labor's constitution states: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields."[1] This "socialist objective" was introduced in 1921, but has always been heavily qualified by wording which makes it clear that Labor supports private property. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party The Greens are a 'green politics' party but their reform agenda is much wider than simple environmental issues including broad changes to wealth distribution such as via estate taxes etc. They are a complex beast no longer confined to a single issue and generally considered to be social democrats, and significantly left of Labor. Their Economics policy page includes a lot of non-environmental policy about improving equity and reducing poverty, primarily though an expanded revenue base (greater progressive taxation). How you could be a Member of the Greens and not be aware of their policies boggles the mind. |
06:42pm 14/07/13 Permalink
I always have to lol at the greens policy to remove coal power in 30 years
It is always fun smashing people on facebook who like to throw around feel good comments about voting for the greens with some of their actual nutbag policies |
06:54pm 14/07/13 Permalink
Infi being deceptive as usual ...
Faceman being crazy ... Thread is still on rails. |
06:59pm 14/07/13 Permalink
All it takes is a simple Google search as Hogfather did. Fireman Sam is a classic example of someone who mindlessly votes and follows the Greens without knowing their full, extremist and stupid agenda just because the Greens entice them in with buzz issues that they have no real serious intention of fixing or no actual way of implementing(such as all the unfunded infrastructure they plan on building etc.) It all sounds good on paper, and the Greens pretend they can wave a wand and get it done. Most of the Greens policies are simply comedy gold.
I have an associate who just recently became a member of the Greens in Victoria because the Greens are promising to build the Doncaster Rail Line despite it costing 11 billion dollars and not being economically viable. Buzz issues is how they get their votes while their real agenda remains hidden. |
08:39pm 14/07/13 Permalink
Great article by Greg Rudd
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/kevin-rudd-my-brother-our-leader/story-e6frg6z6-1226679809936 |
08:19am 16/07/13 Permalink
This is pretty interesting.
http://theconversation.com/au/factcheck Election FactCheck is an independent, non-partisan public service that will test the truthfulness of political statements during Australia’s federal election campaign. |
08:57am 16/07/13 Permalink
That factcheck site is headed up by a guy that tweeted insults at Coalition members.
Was on Media Watch 2 weeks ago. |
10:51am 16/07/13 Permalink
Hey he should work for the ABC then.
|
11:02am 16/07/13 Permalink
Great article by Greg Rudd I have no idea about any of his policies or political alignment, but that is a really well written article from (what sounds like) a balanced and measured person. |
11:04am 16/07/13 Permalink
That factcheck site is headed up by a guy that tweeted insults at Coalition members. Maybe you should invest in a little bit of fact checking. The media watch report was about a different person - Russel Skelton - and it was for the ABC's fact checking unit. The conversation fact checking site appears to be headed up by Gay Alcorn of The Age. |
11:24am 16/07/13 Permalink
i'm not entirely sure that Joe Hockey could make himself look like a bigger douchebag on sunrise these days
Penny Wong owned him this morning and all she had to do was be calm and speak sense sunrise ask joe about a policy and he answers with a usual tyrade about what kevin rudd did wrong completely ignoring the question, it was hilarious |
07:41am 19/07/13 Permalink
poor old joe is being told to toe the company line and is looking the goose for it :(
im sure hes not actually that retarded. |
07:52am 19/07/13 Permalink
haha, i was enjoying the junior LNP's frothing at the mouth about people on welfare living it up at everyones expense, blowing their fat stax on durgs and booze and smokes and durgs.
THATS MY MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING ON THAT GOOD TIEM!!!!!!!!!! /outraged |
07:54am 19/07/13 Permalink
All the dope fiends on the dole. Watch out, we are cleaning this town up.
|
08:08am 19/07/13 Permalink
poor old joe is being told to toe the company line and is looking the goose for it :( I am inclined to feel the same way. The guy has never seemed like a bad bloke to be honest and he'd probably be pretty decent to have a beer and a yack with. |
08:27am 19/07/13 Permalink
Geez coalition must me watering at the mouth at the poles for rudd vs turnbull as preferred pm
Now we'll see the true coalition colours as rudd is spanking abbott as preferred pm still :] |
08:47am 19/07/13 Permalink
yer, if i were tone, id be well nervous
|
09:16am 19/07/13 Permalink
All the dope fiends on the dole. Watch out, we are cleaning this town up. dealing with the big issues bro; number 1 issue: boat people number 2 issue: people on the dole who smoke weed |
09:24am 19/07/13 Permalink
Dont be shocked if they try to link boat people being on the dole smoking pot while watching 70" plasma tv's.
|
09:54am 19/07/13 Permalink
pot smoking dole bludgers are people smugglers, so have loads of undeclared income for pot and TVs?
|
10:03am 19/07/13 Permalink
pot smoking dole bludgers are people smugglers, so have loads of undeclared income for pot and TVs and we'll have more on that story, after the break... http://i.imgur.com/f3YJQB1.png |
10:08am 19/07/13 Permalink
Legalise Pot and create Jobs for Pot smokers on the Dole.
|
12:02pm 19/07/13 Permalink
Legalise Pot and create Jobs for Pot smokers on the Dole. ARE YOU KIDDING? THAT IS ACTUALLY THE .... best idea I've heard in a long time. +1 |
01:58pm 19/07/13 Permalink
With policies like that facemen might end up taking the libs top job. That single line has more info in it than any of their current policies
|
02:48pm 19/07/13 Permalink
commonsense prevails with the junior LNP?
WTF!? |
03:20pm 19/07/13 Permalink
I'm surprised no-one has commented yet on Rudd's complete nullification of Abbott's Stop The Boats message with his announcement this afternoon.
(Note: I don't like the new policy, but in terms of bringing it to Abbott it's a pretty bold move). |
09:21pm 19/07/13 Permalink
Yeah until it gets swatted down in the high court.
A policy that is un-abashedly disregarding Australia's treaty commitments doesn't stand a huge chance. Still it might stick it to Abbott but the criticism of "I will say whatever it takes to get into power" is now just as, if not more so, fairly pointed at Rudd. There is absolutely nothing this guy won't do |
09:26pm 19/07/13 Permalink
What's there to discuss? It's the same old Kevin.
|
09:54pm 19/07/13 Permalink
Lateline showed Papua New Guinea people saying they don't want the refugees.
Labors left wont like this Will the Greens give Labor preferences if they do this ? Its another Kevin Rudd Miracle. He'll never get to the UN now. |
11:06pm 19/07/13 Permalink
From what I understand about this policy I like everything about it except for the price. I would imagine it will cost somewhere between $3-10B a year for this solution. Kevin has promised quite a lot of upgrades to png hospitals and other facilities to get the deal through.
|
11:43pm 19/07/13 Permalink
Lateline showed Papua New Guinea people saying they don't want the refugees. they shouldn't worry not one boat will come if they think they'll get sent to PNG instead |
12:52am 20/07/13 Permalink
Love abott's reply "i like this policy but *generic kevin rudd criticism without any real basis*"
|
07:39am 20/07/13 Permalink
sending boat people elsewhere is a s*** decision all round
fail |
09:04am 20/07/13 Permalink
nah i personally like it, that and the nbn has me on board with labor
sorry i don't feel the need to pay for those peeps, sorry if i am offending the do gooders |
09:24am 20/07/13 Permalink
sorry i don't feel the need to pay for those peeps This is the part that I really can never get. Locking them up and sending them to PNG or whereever, costs a fortune. Rudd said when he announced this, its a huge budget commitment, but that its going to be budget neutral. If it's a huge budget commitment and it's going to be budget neutral, well your going to be paying for them, AND your going to lose some service when the cut something else to make it all work. Letting them in after a few medical / security checks, is by far and away the cheapest option. |
10:31am 20/07/13 Permalink
they shouldn't worry Pretty much. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/BoatArrivals.gif/800px-BoatArrivals.gif |
10:33am 20/07/13 Permalink
yes it costs a fortune but i'd hedge a pretty good wager that housing them and supporting them, potentially forever will cost more in the long term
and the point is to deter them in the first place like howard did |
10:33am 20/07/13 Permalink
Yeah but you don't house and support them forever. Once they are in they can starting working etc. The sooner they are part of the community the sooner they don't have to be supported by the public purse.
You still have to house and support them once the detention is up and they get approved, which the overwhelming majority do. The detention is a massive and largely needless cost. |
10:43am 20/07/13 Permalink
Once they are in they can starting working etc key word being can bro |
11:19am 20/07/13 Permalink
Kevin can't manage the boat people himself so he just outsources the entire problem to PNG - and for what price? Billions of taxpayer dollars.
Kevin reversed the successful John Howard policies in 2007 and now has introduced a more extreme policy. Does this man stand for ANYTHING? |
12:05pm 20/07/13 Permalink
who dafuq here voted the Dudd to replace Howard?
|
12:52pm 20/07/13 Permalink
Yes infi he does, he exists entirely to ensure that you have something to cry yourself to sleep at night over.
|
12:59pm 20/07/13 Permalink
All we need to do is show a few extreme acts of violence towards these boats and they will stop coming.
Just have to navy do some practice shooting for a few weeks and they will get the idea. |
01:14pm 20/07/13 Permalink
so he just outsources the entire problem How is turning around the boats managing it yourself ? It's a really pathetic that popular politics in Australia has made it ok for things like the PNG solution to be "ok". But it was a clever move, how will the LNP differentiate it self on boats now ? short of letting the navy use them for shooting practice they have to appear "softer". |
03:40pm 20/07/13 Permalink
This latest asylum seaker policy from labor is f*****g disgusting. It makes me yearn for Howard's boarder policies.
It is a sad day to be an Australian. |
06:07pm 20/07/13 Permalink
So howard punts them to naru and thats fine, but when rudd punts them to PNG thats not? What am i missing here?
|
06:19pm 20/07/13 Permalink
So howard punts them to naru and thats fine, but when rudd punts them to PNG thats not? What am i missing here? under Howard they go to nauru are assessed and then granted TPVs. under Rudd they are sent to PNG and never seen again. |
06:35pm 20/07/13 Permalink
i thought he said he would be reintroducing TPV's? fairly certain that was mentioned
the rest that aren't actually seeking assylum rather that just running from the unfortunate country they were born in |
06:39pm 20/07/13 Permalink
All of a sudden the Greens became the sanest choice this election. F*** this racist backwards hick country. Both major political parties now have policies specially tailored towards the bigoted. I hope this makes world news and Australia is shamed into oblivion.
|
08:08pm 20/07/13 Permalink
told you the do gooders wouldn't like this
|
08:33pm 20/07/13 Permalink
just read that the asylum seekers on nauru rioted and caused $60 million worth of damage.
|
08:36pm 20/07/13 Permalink
just read that the asylum seekers on nauru rioted and caused $60 million worth of damage.If it was in retaliation to this latest announcement and it was just property damage and nobody was injured, good. I'd riot too. do goodersI know simpletons like to hand-wave complex issues by using catchphrases like this but don't you think it is the least bit sad that people who wish that others less fortunate than themselves can have a chance at a better life are treated with tryhard cynical disdain? How did that ever begin to happen? |
08:43pm 20/07/13 Permalink
If it was in retaliation to this latest announcement and it was just property damage and nobody was injured, good. I'd riot too. 6 people were hospitalized. |
08:49pm 20/07/13 Permalink
So fpot you are ok with people smashing s*** up when theu dont get what they want or because they are just pissed off?
We could go back and forth over the merits or lack there of of detention centers all day but when all is said and done behaving like a c*** when you are hoping to enter a new country really isnt nore should it help their cause. Someone needs to explain to the that f*****g over 60 mils worth of taxpayers s*** really isnt a smart move given how political the issue is. On the topic of the damage they did. I dont know about you guys but doesnt 60 millions worth of damage sound just a little far fetched? Is everything there made of gold or something? Not sure about you lot but id be inclined to think they over estimate this crap just to grab bit more publoc attention and for all the wrong reasons. |
09:03pm 20/07/13 Permalink
$60 million sounds about right considering how much they destroyed
Eighty per cent of the centre has been destroyed, with only the kitchen and recreation buildings standing. Accommodation blocks designed to hold up to 616 people were burnt to the ground, as were office blocks. A dining room and health centre were also destroyed. |
09:17pm 20/07/13 Permalink
It was just a querry bit it still sounds like a hell of a lot more than i would have expected. I guess it probably comes down to how well equipped those buildings were such as the medical center.
|
09:22pm 20/07/13 Permalink
send those c**** back to their origin country imo, we shouldn't be tolerating that s*** - regardless of how cranky they get
|
09:31pm 20/07/13 Permalink
Eighty per cent of the centre has been destroyed, with only the kitchen and recreation buildings standing. Accommodation blocks designed to hold up to 616 people were burnt to the ground, as were office blocks. A dining room and health centre were also destroyed. Awesome now they get to sleep under the stars. |
09:45pm 20/07/13 Permalink
See thats the kind of response the libs are iching to tap into. I dont completely disagree with you in tbat i believe anyone who immigrates should put up with the system if they truely want to be in the country of their choosing. But i am not totally sold on the political bulls*** pushed out into the media because its pretty frigging obvious its just vote buying.
I am want to be here with my missus in the US so its on me to do the right thing by their system. I fully expect if i do the wrong thing to get my ass tossed out of the country. Its cost me upward of 5k in paper work but shile it suck its tough s*** thats what it takes, its not like the US came to me and asked me to come here. |
09:53pm 20/07/13 Permalink
See thats the kind of response the libs are iching to tap into. I dont completely disagree with you in tbat i believe anyone who immigrates should put up with the system if they truely want to be in the country of their choosing. But i am not totally sold on the political bulls*** pushed out into the media because its pretty frigging obvious its just vote buying.I am want to be here with my missus in the US so its on me to do the right thing by their system. I fully expect if i do the wrong thing to get my ass tossed out of the country. Its cost me upward of 5k in paper work but shile it suck its tough s*** thats what it takes, its not like the US came to me and asked me to come here. You are really comparing your story to people that want to get on a boat? Nice one. You are my new hero with your tales of immigration to a foreign country. http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html |
10:20pm 20/07/13 Permalink
for me that kind of money could train them to work in any number of mining jobs.
have to stop the boats but that's a waste of money. |
10:23pm 20/07/13 Permalink
You are really comparing your story to people that want to get on a boat? Nice one. You are my new hero with your tales of immigration to a foreign country.http://www.watoday.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/youve-been-misled-on-boat-people-here-are-the-facts-20130718-2q5rv.html The point I was making is that when you front up at another country the obligation is on you to do the right things by the systems they have in place for dealing with you. If its to tough for you and you don't like it then don't bother coming. How could you not get that? I would be sympathetic if they were from PNG (as an example) and were forced out of their country by a bloody civil war because they are right next door and we should work with our neighbors however the boat people aren't our neighbors. They trot through a dozen other countries to get to Australia so if you are going to be that picky then you SHOULD accept the system at your destination. I don't care if you are Richard Branson or Muammar it's your choice and if being here means that much to you then deal with the process and cop it sweet or find somewhere better and more to your liking. This isn't a tough concept and it sure as f*** isn't an unreasonable one either. I don't agree with some of what our government has done to try and deal with the issue but that's another story. I do believe though that good or bad while those systems are in place deal with it. |
11:13pm 20/07/13 Permalink
The point I was making is that when you front up at another country the obligation is on you to do the right things by the systems they have in place for dealing with you.Hey guys, just sit patiently while we indefinitely detain you. And those family members and friends who you thought you might be seeing again soon? Yeah that's not happening anymore. Now f*** off we're full. australia.txt |
11:15pm 20/07/13 Permalink
What exactly would be the best policy for dealing with illegal arrivals in your world fpot?
|
11:26pm 20/07/13 Permalink
While I'd love to have yet another exciting political discussion with you, I'd rather just refer you to a post I made earlier in the thread -
I used to like political threads on QGL till I realised it is pretty much just the same people posting until they reach a critical mass point of wrongness, people desperately trying to show them reason, and then instead of learning from it they'll just froth away on some new tangent. Then when they have reached the critical mass point of wrongness on every single topic that the thread could possibly cover the thread dies, only for a new politics thread to crop up at a later date and for them to be wrong all over again about the exact same topics covered in the previous thread and for the process to literally repeat itself. I mean, when you have to change your name repeatedly and re-reg accounts to try and give yourself a fresh start on an internet forum you've got to be doing a lot of things wrong.I guess recent events were just so extraordinarily bad that I couldn't help commenting on them in here, which was a mistake because when I see you replying to me, oh boy, do I ever realise I have waded into some s***. |
11:41pm 20/07/13 Permalink
Yeah id kind of like to know that myself. Like said, there is a bit of the current system i dont like but it is what it is and if its a problem for you then perhaps you need to rethink where you are headed.
Btw fpot are you suggesting they all have relatives here or did you just add that part in to give the old heart strings a tug? |
11:45pm 20/07/13 Permalink
while the PNG deal might be getting the air time has anyone noticed the deal with indonesia to stop grant iranians visas on arrival.
as was reported, 6000 iranians visited indonesia last year and we granted visas, 5000 of those then jumped on a boat and came to australia. don't discount that impact. besides, the whole 'we'll ship them off to PNG' thing is the side story. that fact that the deterrent exists in the first place will stop people who can afford $15000 each to pay a people smuggler which was the idea in the first place. at present the deterrent is, jump on a boat, destroy your passport, land on christmas island and deal with the fact that only high percentage of applicants are granted asylum. and on the other hand, the critics will be vocal. this is a multi billion dollar industry in this country alone. the lawyers, the support services, serco, g4s, 'not' for profit groups, community organisers etc, there is some seriously big dollars being thrown around. in case your interested in how self interested some of these groups may be and how rudd has destroyed THEIR business model.. $8 billion last year for example at the top ADA GOLD Aviation... never heard of them ? $200million in government revenue in 2012 to fly people around. http://michaelsmithnews.typepad.com/files/immigration-department-contracts.pdf |
11:45pm 20/07/13 Permalink
Yeah id kind of like to know that myself. Like said, there is a bit of the current system i dont like but it is what it is and if its a problem for you then perhaps you need to rethink where you are headed.Well the first step would to not be surprised when a whole bunch of people who haven't committed a crime riot against indefinite detention. They could have handled things better, but when a large group of people have their freedom taken away you have to expect some kind of reaction. I don't have any answers on what to do. No-one does. That is the crux of the whole issue but what doesn't help are people on the internet posting from their comfy homes about how those pesky refugees won't just shut up and stay behind bars peacefully. And of course they don't all have relatives overseas. But all it takes is for the word to go around... you won't be seeing your father/mother/son/daughter/whatever when you had expected to see them, and for the panic to spread around like a bushfire. Imagine for a second it was you who were locked up after surviving a perilous journey. You know a family member is about to attempt the same trip. You have no way of knowing if they have made it and then all of a sudden news filters down that you might never find out. Just think about how that would feel for just one second and then ask yourself whether your post of 'they should just put up with it' makes you sound like an utter c*** or not. Pulling at heart strings? Maybe I am, but some people have to because this whole hating on refugees thing is just completely borne from a s***** 'f*** you got mine' attitude. You talk about neighbours like there is some geographic line that separates people we should care about and people we shouldn't. There isn't - everyone deserves an equal chance at the basic necessities of life and that's all these people are after. The whole notion of them leaving livable yet tough conditions so they can bludge of the dole and get healthcare is just A Current Affair newsdotcomdotau rubbish. |
12:37am 21/07/13 Permalink
just for lols, here's one they made earlier. it's not even wake and bake in November month yet.
https://i.canvasugc.com/ugc/p/canvas_xlsis.png not as good as the recent Bill Clinton the Lady Killer and no where near as good as Don't Change Horsemen Mid Apocalypse, which I don't have the href of anymore. |
12:55am 21/07/13 Permalink
http://i.imgur.com/A5dA3GJ.jpg
"Don't risk taking a boat" Yeah, okay. I think I'll have some limbs blown off instead. Thanks Australian Government for the advice. |
03:13am 21/07/13 Permalink
I am ok with them being detained but not indefinately. Why does it end up being indefinate, is it because we dont throw enough resources at processing them or is it because the refugee themselves has made it near impossible to varify their identity and back ground? Perhaps a combination of both?
I have a problem with not giving people any light at the end of the tunnel and i dont much like the idea of children growing up in those places either. |
05:30am 21/07/13 Permalink
dealing with the big issues bro; lols, big issue number 3 CRACKER NITE |
01:32pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Poor infi, you actually like this new policy but you can't say that because you like blue ties.
Sex party needs to run in both houses... |
06:38pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Why would I like a policy which denies genuine refugees a right to seek protection in Australia?
There was no need to go this far. It's more policy on the run, here we go again with the same old Kevin... |
06:47pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Its another Kevin Rudd 'Win the Election' ploy.
The Greens will never let his ETS change go through They wont support this either and its also doubtful it will survive legal challenges but that's ok because by the time that happens the Election will be over. He will then change his mind and open his heart to those poor people and shed a tear and ask his fellow Australians to give the refugees a fair shake of the sauce bottle. Rudd will say anything to win the Election. His rewrite of the Party rules adventure starts tomorrow. Emperor Rudd may emerge very soon. Supreme Leader of the Peoples Republic of Australia |
07:57pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Of course abbott would never say anything just to win an election would he. Mind you he'd have to have something to say to start with instead of .... errr mmmm errrr *head boble* crickets chirping* head bobble* more crickets*
As for emperor rudd, what the hell do you think howard was? He ran the libs like a dictatorship. |
08:23pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Now that ALP is more racist than LNP, to which will you direct your preference fpot?
|
08:44pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Why would I like a policy which denies genuine refugees a right to seek protection in Australia? But genuine refugees going through legitimate channels do still have a right to seek protection in Australia, this is just for people being illegally smuggled in on boats? Not that I'm sure I really support this policy, but at least paint an accurate picture of it if you're going to criticise it. |
09:05pm 21/07/13 Permalink
what the hell do you think howard was? He ran the libs like a dictatorship. do you have some evidence for that? Not that I'm sure I really support this policy, but at least paint an accurate picture of it if you're going to criticise it. that's a point sure but we are speaking about boat entrants here. speaking of being accurate, did you know that the PNG dealdoes not extend to women and children, those who do not clear security checks and those with communicable diseases, who would all remain australia's problem? That does not make it a very good deterrent... Did you know that the Caucus has not yet approved this policy and that there is a lof of opposition to it? So much for Mr Rudd being a new and improved consultative type. |
09:30pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Yeah a little doco called something like the howard years or some such crap
|
09:38pm 21/07/13 Permalink
Howard didn't introduce a rule saying he could not be removed without a 75% vote. He always lead the Libs with the support of his party. It's just no one ever challenged him. This rule by Rudd makes it impossible for him to be even challenged. He has become Supreme Chancellor of the ALP.
|
09:48pm 21/07/13 Permalink
I'm not a big fan of this PNG deal. It seems very unethical to send these people to areas that already have heavy burdens. It seems like a no-brainer that sending a bunch of desperate people (you have to be desperate to risk the boat travel) to a place that already has a high crime rate is bad idea.
Add to that if you keep the women here and send the men off.. Men want women, it can make us do silly things. If you are already a bit angry, a bit desperate how much more silly could it make you? So you have a bunch of displaced men, dumped into an area of high crime and low policing all a bit desperate and angry. What would you do?? Add on top of that, if these people are then given money to help star a new life, in PNG, the locals are not going to be happy with that. Kind of the same here.. Unethical to say the least, what other options are there? |
12:11pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Unethical to say the least, what other options are there? Stop treating asylum seekers like hardened criminals and national security threats, show some human compassion. As soon as we break out of this xenophobic view of the issue our options widen considerably. Remove the pants on head retarded law that says even once their status as legit asylum seeker is accepted that they can't work for 5 years so they can get jobs and pay taxes. Who the f*** came up with that one anyway? Seriously, I need to know. Punish the people doing the smuggling much more harshly. They're on the f*****g boat with the refugees aren't they!? This may be difficult due to maritime law wankery but surely we have options to lock them up for a long time! If they can lock up our people for a boogie bag of dope for 20 years surely we can return the favour on these truly vile examples of human filth. |
12:17pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Hogfather, the problem is the more you allow it the more people will try to do it which would continually accelerate the issue. You can understand this.
A hard problem to tackle. You have to be compassionate, yet you can't encourage people to do it without a strong reason. |
12:46pm 22/07/13 Permalink
have not heard of the no workie for 5 years law.
more info on that one hoggie? |
01:15pm 22/07/13 Permalink
for study?
aww yiss. i am analysing the stats from the ABS torrent bro, it's gonna take a while to comprehendo. |
01:28pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Hogfather, the problem is the more you allow it the more people will try to do it which would continually accelerate the issue. You can understand this. I fundamentally disagree with this. You don't discourage unsafe refugee migration by being mean to refugees (you know, the VICTIMS), that's bulls***. You discourage it by putting the people running the boats behind bars for a long, long time. Unless you're talking about a 'f*** off we're full' policy in which case yes, you withdraw from the convention and tell them all to f*** off. have not heard of the no workie for 5 years law. Looks like it was a Gillard thing, part of the no advantage s***. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4732446.html lots of info on the policy, just google 'asylum seeker work 5 years'. Coalition wants to make them do work for the dole apparently while still not allowing them the freedom to work for money. Such a c*** act all round, makes me sick. Mark my words in 50 years time people will be apologising in parliament and doing bridge walk sorry days. |
01:31pm 22/07/13 Permalink
You don't discourage unsafe refugee migration by being mean to refugees (you know, the VICTIMS), that's bulls***. But that worked under Howard. Rudd loosened the Laws which created fertile ground for smugglers to operate. Just what kind of system do You think we should have ? |
02:20pm 22/07/13 Permalink
You discourage it by putting the people running the boats behind bars for a long, long time. that is cool and all, but when you aren't the police in the corrupt country that the boats are coming from, you don't have a lot of choice. |
02:47pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Just what kind of system do You think we should have ? Maybe sort out the problems, delays and limits with processing genuine refugees through the correct channels so they don't see their only option is to jump on a leaking boat. |
03:08pm 22/07/13 Permalink
how do you determine who someone is and that their claim is valid when they have destroyed the passport ?
Outcomes of 2010–11 program In 2010–11 a total of 13 799 visas were granted under the Humanitarian Program, of which 8971 visas were granted under the offshore component and 4828 visas were granted under the onshore component. See the tables below for further details on the 2010–11 program outcomes. Woman at Risk In 2010–11, 759 visas (12.7 per cent) of the Refugee category were granted to Woman at Risk visa applicants, exceeding the nominal annual target of 12 per cent. Applications In 2010–11, a total of 54 396 applications were made for visas under the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program. Of these, 29 793 were made under the Refugee category and 24 603 were made under the SHP category. Note: The high demand for visas mean that it may take several years for applications to be decided and most will be unsuccessful. and earlier this year The increase in the annual refugee quota from 13,750 to 20,000 people was one of the key planks of the expert panel report on asylum seeker policy handed to the Government earlier this month. personally i think australia takes its fair share. its not fair to lump australia in with comparisons of pakistan or turkey or jordan as there isn't a war going on, on our border. the queue jumpers are paying large sums of money to travel half way around the world then to jump on a boat from indonesia with a sole destination of australia. that sums up the definition of an economic migrant. with the 'liberal' immigration policy that labor instituted after they won the election, an inch was given, then 50000 took advantage of it. |
03:35pm 22/07/13 Permalink
that is cool and all, but when you aren't the police in the corrupt country that the boats are coming from, you don't have a lot of choice. But you are the police in the territory where they arrive? Their vessels should be forfeit, captain and crew facing 20 years to life. You can also work with the country they are coming from, providing logistical and intelligence support to the local enforcement agencies. Far better than spending billions on infrastructure and services to cage refugees in Nauru or using econo-political clout to force countries who also don't want them to take them. But that worked under Howard. Howard introduced f*** off we're full. If you like that stance then fine, but dressing it up as anything else is deceitful. Why are people so afraid of a few refugees? Pussies. |
03:38pm 22/07/13 Permalink
...
A couple of things: 1. As long as there is a demand, people will provide the means. Take out 1 captain, another replaces them. 2. The people running the boats will be sure not to be ON the boat if this sort of thing happens often. Instead they will hire patsy captains that don't have a clue on what is going to happen if they get caught. Also the captain of the boat can just claim they are refugees too. Busting the ring-leaders would be better, but harder. How is the 'War on Drugs' going? Same idea really, bust the dealers to stop the drugs. That doesn't work, the drugs just keep coming because their is a huge demand for it. So the problems remains. How do you decrease the demand of people wanting to boat their way into Australia? The basic idea from both sides is to try and get the idea out there that, 'If you boat to Australia, you aren't going get there'. |
03:49pm 22/07/13 Permalink
So to use your war on drugs analogy, you support jailing drug users or something ... ?
I can't support any policy that discourages behaviour by directly attacking the victims. I would rather live with more boat arrivals and the sadness of sea deaths than be a c*** to any genuine refugee seeking shelter in Australia. Its sad that people drown but locking up thousands of innocent people over it is just cruel. But hey, if you can morally reconcile yourself to living in a country that does that sort of thing then that's up to you, one man one vote, but I personally find it sad and repugnant. Give me your tired, your poor, I fundamentally believe in this sentiment and feel that our country has continually been built on the backs of such people, including my own family who fled Europe for a better life many generations ago. I wish we could be aspirational and compassionate rather than cruel, selfish and spiteful. Look at the mean spirit of this thread, how dare other people less fortunate risk their lives to seek a better life here! F*** off, we're full! |
04:04pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Howard introduced f*** off we're full. If you like that stance then fine, but dressing it up as anything else is deceitful. Why are people so afraid of a few refugees? Pussies. thats a misrepresentation of the truth. f***offwerefull would mean we didn't take any refugees or migrants which is complete bulls***. it was steady at around 13000 per year under howard which was the case for labor up until this year. he introduced a blatant policy that discouraged people thinking they could get a short cut past everyone else in the 'system' which at the end of the day worked. the labor system has just meant that 50000 people have since arrived via other channels and now all the associated riots, detention centres, mental health problems, protests, billion of dollars spent etc |
04:24pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Something I don't understand is this:
If you want to stop/deter immigrants from coming to Australia through boats, why not setup a processing centre in the country and make it policy that anyone who arrives by boat shall be returned to country of origin and given information on how to apply through correct channels. My biggest hate for the whole ordeal is there are scum bags who are profiting from peoples desperation combined with providing an extreme s***** form of transport. thats a misrepresentation of the truth. f***offwerefull would mean we didn't take any refugees or migrants which is complete bulls***. it was steady at around 13000 per year under howard which was the case for labor up until this year. source for all those numbers. |
04:42pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Hoggy, I don't support it. Never said I did. I simply pointed that this is a problem with seemingly no good solution.
|
04:46pm 22/07/13 Permalink
06:24pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Queue jumpers is probably my favourite term used by bigots because even if it was true that refugees were jumping a queue I'd still support them in doing so because I think it is more important they get resettled quicker than some English guy who likes sunny weather.
|
07:06pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Sorry I should have added the hopelessly uninformed to the list of people who use that term as well. My apologies.
|
07:14pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Why would I like a policy which denies genuine refugees a right to seek protection in Australia? You mean like turning boats around at sea? ... what's that ? a logical hole in your reasoning? This is why it is clever politics, you can't disagree with the policy except by disagreeing with existing LNP policy. p.s. It's a s*** policy. |
07:14pm 22/07/13 Permalink
You mean like turning boats around at sea? Those are illegal entrants. As such, they are not entitled to enter the Australian border. Due to the Refugee convention, any illegal entrant that does successfully arrive is detained and their application is assessed (and security/health checked). Under Howard's/Abbott's policy, they then may be granted temporary protection until their period of endangerment ends. If their endangerment is permanent then they are resettled in Australia. However under Rudd's policy, a refugee will never set foot on Australia, never get protection in Australia and never be resettled in Australia. What a cruel policy. And the worst thing is that it is applied in a half arsed manner by Rudd. Women and Children are still being taken by Australia - so the deterrent value of it is completely neutered as well. Howard's policy was the best for our country, while providing protection for refugees in need. Why don't Iranian and Afghan refugees stop and seek asylum at any of the dozens of countries between there and Australia? it's because they are not genuine refugees, they are just seeking a more comfortable life without filling in paperwork and making the necessary applications. |
07:29pm 22/07/13 Permalink
Why don't Iranian and Afghan refugees stop and seek asylum at any of the dozens of countries between there and Australia? it's because they are not genuine refugees, they are just seeking a more comfortable life without filling in paperwork and making the necessary applications this is where i get off the do gooder bandwagon call me a bigot or whatever the f*** you want fpot, there are any number of countries they can stop in while they travel half way around the world to get to indonesia to get refuge from conflict/whatever but no, it is nicer in australia so that is the aim of the game - f*** that |
07:37pm 22/07/13 Permalink
While i support helping refugees as our ancestors were all refugees, I'd like to know at what point do we say we're doing enough to help them, as surely we can't expect to take in everyone that arrives on our shores. The issue is having a huge influx of refugees coming here, or termed, economic refugees, those who don't genuinely need to flee. How do we sort them out from the genuine ones, and keep the numbers under control? Our small population can only intake certain numbers on top of immigration without causing low paid employment issues and them becoming a burden on the system.
What is the correct solution? If we don't take a hard line approach, people will desperately make the trip, and people will die. The hardline aapproach, people will seek refuge closer to their home country, or in other regions of their country. I'm open minded to either side of the argument |
07:41pm 22/07/13 Permalink
